eee ven eae s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PANS 732. 
 TRE SERVANT or ΒΒΟΥΛΗ. ᾿ 
 yn a, na 
 
 
 

 
 »»" 
 
 ΓΣ τ οτς ον ΝῊ 
 pr pOPER Ty OF 
 
 » 
 Y PRYINEW ΠΩΣ 
 V PRINCETON 
 
 - 
 . 
 t 
 a\ ΤΥ VY WLW. BC Ae ot ΣΎ 
 ἊΣ ἃν, ἀπ HO UU & 1 Cx AA 
 BOUIN ABS a 
 -- At hat AD 7 
 »ύψυ ον Το 
 Dc | | ge oe , 
 Divisioh IID 1.5 
 j Ὡ 5 > 
 
 
 
 
 we 
 
 ety 
 | 
 4 
 
 
 
faulty 
 . ἴω 
 
 = : A, : | 
 . g lat age | ἧς, NE ‘4 | 
 
 1855 
 1 Fb. 
 yy 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 2 
 & 
 
THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON, . . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND co. 
 DUBLIN, . . . + . ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
 NEW YORK, . . . . SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. 
 
PRT 573} 
 
 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 A 
 
 COMMENTARY, GRAMMATICAL AND CRITICAL, 
 
 UPON. 
 
 ISAIAH LIL 138—LIIL 12. 
 
 WITH DISSERTATIONS UPON THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH XL.-LXVL., 
 AND UPON THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE fim s3y. ALSO 
 A NOTE UPON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 
 SIN AND TRESPASS OFFERINGS. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM ‘URWICK, M.A, 
 
 .OF. TRIN. COLL. DUBLIN; TUTOR IN HEBREW, NEW COLL. LONDON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Peek CLARK. 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 ΘΖ 1: 
 

 
 
 ees NS 
 ven” oe 4 Att 
 ᾿ a” τ ae } 
 
 
 
TO THE MEMORY OF 
 
 MY BELOVED AND REVERED 
 
 FATHER, 
 
 ᾿ TO WHOSE INSTRUCTION IN EARLY DAYS, AND INFLUENCE THROUGHOUT 
 
 HIS LONG AND USEFUL LIFE, 
 
 I OWE THE PRINCIPLES WHICH NOW FORM THE BASIS OF MY FAITH AND HOPE, 
 TD Ht CANT HS ΤῊ Rn AS 1 Sok, 
 
 UPON A THEME IN WHICH HE EVER DELIGHTED, AND WHICI{ FORMED 
 THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS PREACHING, THE JOY OF HIS LIFF, 
 
 AND THE STAY OF HIS SOUL IN DEATH. 
 

 
PREFACE. 
 
 ONFRONTING the traditional and unsophisticated belief 
 of Christendom downto the present century, we have 
 now-a-days the assertions confidently made by scholars, Jewish 
 and Christian, not a few, that the prophecy so called of Isaiah 
 xl—Ixvi. was not written till more than a century after the 
 great Isaiah was dead; that it is not a prophecy, but a picture 
 by a contemporary of the sorrows and hopes of the exile ; that 
 the Servant of Jehovah in chapter 111. does not mean the 
 Messiah at all; and, in a word, that the Old Testament knows 
 nothing of a suffering Messiah. These views, indeed, are by 
 some persons regarded as matters of fact that have passed out 
 of the region of controversy, and that are to be taken for granted 
 as true; and they look upon it as a sign of sheer ignorance to 
 hold any other. 
 
 Nothing, it must be allowed, is easier than to adopt these 
 views,—to talk of the supposed Exile author as himself Abd- 
 Adonai, “the Servant of Jehovah,” to place his prophecy and 
 the Books of Wisdom side by side as equal to anything in 
 previous Jewish literature, and to represent sacrifice as a relic 
 of barbarism giving way to the doctrine of prayer, which in 
 turn may have to give way to the law of invariable sequence. 
 There is much to tempt the ambitious student to embrace these 
 views; they are broad, they are fashionable, they are a sign 
 ‘of culture. They embody a growing tendency on the part of 
 many modern Jews and Christians to join hands at Calvary, 
 by mutually toning down the old austerities alike of Scripture 
 
Vili PREFACE. 
 
 Judaism and New Testament Christianity,—the doctrines, 
 namely, of human sin and guilt on the one hand, and of 
 expiation by sacrifice on the other. Fine pictures of human 
 nature; complimentary references to the beautifully self- 
 sacrificmg life of Jesus, who after all was a Jew, and in 
 some respects developed Judaism for the better ; apologies for 
 certain quaint Scripture phrases about “blood” and “cleans- 
 ” “propitiation” and “atonement :” these are the themes 
 tee which they can agree to dwell, who, as Jews, cast away 
 the core of Old Testament Ritual, or, as Christians, dethrone 
 what we have been wont to regard as the queen of New 
 Testament truths—remission of sins by the blood of the 
 Lamb. 
 
 Candidly and thoroughly to examine the grounds of this 
 new orthodoxy in one department of it, is the object of the 
 present work. The first Dissertation concerns the authorship 
 of Isaiah xl—Ixvi.—a question which is distinct from that 
 which follows; for, of course, it is possible to hold the Exile 
 authorship, and, nevertheless, to embrace the Messianic inter- 
 pretation. The second Dissertation is upon the meaning and 
 reference of the expression Servant of Jehovah in the prophecy. 
 Hereupon follows a grammatical and exegetical commentary 
 upon the central prophecy, lii. 13—liii. 12, where the Levitical 
 ritual and the sacrifice on Calvary meet, and which is supple- 
 mented by a Note upon the sin- and trespass-offerings of the 
 Jewish law. 
 
 In the Old Testament, Isaiah the fifty-third must be the 
 battle-field for the decisive conflict between the champions of 
 the old orthodoxy and the new. While modern Jews are 
 telling us that the Day of Atonement is only a refinement of 
 later and degenerate Judaism a thousand years after Moses, 
 and that the Old Testament knows nothing of a suffering 
 Messiah, the voices of their Scriptures echo in reply: “The 
 Lord spake unto Moses ;” and early Jewish authorities give as 
 their comment: “The suffering Servant here is King Messiah.” 
 While modern leaders of thought, and popular critics, would 
 
 ing 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 ‘persuade us that the sufferer is Josiah, or Jeremiah, or the 
 pious remnant, or Israel, or the prophet himself; Apostles 
 and Evangelists, Fathers and Reformers, quote and explain 
 the chapter in its several parts as describing none other than 
 the Lams or Gop, who by His substitutionary obedience unto 
 death, and His expiatory sacrifice, provides redemption for 
 mankind. 
 
 It cannot be thought, therefore, ill-timed or inappropriate 
 to give special attention to the exegesis of this portion of 
 Holy Scripture, and to the questions that cluster round it. 
 The writer has been working in this field for a considerable 
 time. He has studied the varied literature of the subject. 
 During the session of 1874—75 he gave a course of Lectures, 
 first upon the Authorship, and then upon the Interpretation, 
 to his Hebrew class at New College. The present work 
 embodies the results of this labour, and the substance of those 
 Lectures, thoroughly revised. 
 
 He trusts that the effect of his book may be, to convince 
 all who will candidly peruse it, that the modern views, how- 
 ever sanctioned by names of high authority, are not so certain 
 as to be taken for granted as settled and established facts ; 
 and to confirm the faith of those who cling to the doctrine of 
 Christ Crucified as the joy of their life, and their hope for the 
 world. Against the denials of modern scepticism, the super- 
 stitions of modern Ritualism, and the arrogance of Vaticanism, 
 no weapon is mightier (because the Spirit of God wields it, 
 and the human conscience is pierced by it) than that provided 
 by our Saviour in His words: “ Thus it is written, and thus it 
 behoved Christ to suffer ;” “I, if 1 be lifted up from the earth, 
 will draw all men unto me.” 
 
 49 BrLsizE PARK GARDENS, Lonpon, N.W., 
 November 29, 1876. 
 
J 
 ye 
 >.> 
 
 ᾿ 4 ΒῚ 
 ἜΝ. 
 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 DISSERTATION 1. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Upon THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GREAT PROPHECY OF ISAIAH XL.-LXVI., 1-50 
 
 Sec. 1. External Testimony, . : : ; : 3 
 
 he Standing-point of the Water’, : : ς - 10 
 
 > Relation to other O. T. Books, : 5 : : ies 
 
 4, Testimony of the Language, . ς : : : eg ree 
 DISSERTATION ΤΙ. 
 
 SIGNIFICATION OF THE ΠῚ) Jay IN THE PROPHECY, . ΖΜ 51-95 
 
 Sec. 1. Testimonies to the Messianic Interpretation, . - ye oe 
 
 2. Non-Messianic Interpretation, : 4 ‘ ‘ =, ©58 
 
 3. Classification of Passages, . : : : SD 
 
 4. Chapter lit. 18-liii, 12, . .. hy oie sen 
 
 5. Objections against the Messianic aie pee θείας a i oO 
 
 6. Application of the Chapter by N. T. Writers, . : eee 
 
 7. Conclusions arrived at, . : 2 ᾿ , : ete GD 
 
 
 
 CoMMENTARY, GRAMMATICAL AND ORITICAL, ON Isa. 111. 13-Lu. 12, 97-162 
 
 Nore ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS 
 IN LEVITICUS, : : ; ; : : Ε . 163-192 
 
 WorKS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BEARING UPON THE SUBJECT, . 193-195 
 

 
DISSERTATION 1. 
 
 UPON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GREAT PROPHECY OF 
 ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 ᾿ the first great portion of the book which bears 
 Isaiah’s name, chapters ixxxix., the name of 
 the prophet frequently occurs, and is prefixed to 
 particular discourses. In chap. i. 1 we find the 
 general title, “716 vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz ;” 
 in chap. ii. 1, “716 word that Isaiah the son of Amoz 
 saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem ;” chap. vii. 3, 
 “Then said the Lord unto Isaiah ;” chap. xiii. 1, “The 
 burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did 
 see.” Besides these direct statements indicative of 
 authorship, we have the account of the prophet’s 
 call, written in the first person, in chapter vi.; the 
 personal allusions to his wife and children, in chapters 
 vii. and vill.; and the frequent occurrence of his 
 name in the historic section, chapters xxxvi., xxxvii., 
 ROOK VIN ., πε σῦς. | 
 
 As we enter the second great portion, these personal 
 references disappear, and the name Jsazah does not 
 once occur. 
 
 No explicit statement, therefore, of authorship in 
 the portion itself forbids our examining the matter 
 impartially, apart from doctrinal considerations, and 
 without the constraint of any unalterable foregone 
 
 conclusion. The Psalms are usually entitled, The 
 A 
 
2 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 Psalms of David, though many of them are expressly 
 the works of other writers, e.g. Asaph, Solomon, 
 Moses. The Proverbs are called Solomon’s, though 
 some of them are avowedly the productions of Agur 
 and King Lemuel. And so the name Isaiah in chap. 
 i. 1, as covering the entire book, does not in itself 
 oblige us to conclude that Isaiah is the author through- 
 out, though it indicates that the compilers of the 
 Nebiim (Prophets) thought so. They certainly would 
 not have put chapters xl-lxvi. among the writings 
 bearing Isaiah’s name if they knew that they were the 
 work of anotherman. Jews and Christians alike, down 
 to the close of the eighteenth centtiry, regarded these 
 chapters as Isaiah’s. Since then the opinion of biblical 
 critics, led mainly by Gesenius, has been, that chapters 
 xl. to Ixvi. are the work of some “great unnamed,” some 
 unknown and unmentioned prophet, living and writing 
 at Babylon (or in Egypt) in the first year of Cyrus. 
 This opinion has now-a-days become so generally 
 adopted, that it is regarded by many competent 
 scholars as the only orthodox one, and to espouse any 
 other is looked upon as a proof not only of narrow- 
 ness, but of sheer ignorance. Still some names of 
 weight are on the opposite side, e.g. Hengstenberg, 
 Keil, Delitzsch, in Germany; Alexander, in America ; 
 Dr. Henderson, Dr. Payne Smith, and Dr. Stanley 
 Leathes, in England. While nineteenth century 
 critics thus stand face to face against Jews and 
 Christians of the eighteen centuries before them, 
 in one point nearly all agree,—namely, in the unity 
 of the authorship of chapters xl. to Ixvi.; and the 
 following threefold division of nine chapters each is 
 adopted by most exegesists as, indicated in chap. 
 xl. 2, the key-note of the whole. | 
 
 I, That her warfare is accomplished, chapters xl.—xlviii. ; 
 ending with, ““No peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” 
 
SEC. 1.—EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 3 
 
 This part alone speaks of Babylon (four times), the 
 Chaldeans (five times), Cyrus (twice). 
 
 Il. That her iniquity 1s pardoned, chapters xlix.—lvii. ; 
 ending with, “No peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” 
 Expiation of guilt by the sacrifice. of the servant of 
 Jehovah, and the offer of pardon thereupon.’ 
 
 III. She hath received of the Lord's hand double for all 
 her sins, chapters lviii—lxvi.; ending with, “ Their worm 
 shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they 
 shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” The future triumph 
 and glory of the church. 
 
 In examining the question of authorship, we shall 
 adopt the following method of inquiry :— 
 
 Sec. 1. External testimony. 
 
 Sec. 2. Standing-point of writer, as witnessed by 
 the prophecy itself. 
 
 Sec. 3. Relation of writer to Jeremiah and other 
 Old Testament books. 
 
 Sec. 4. Testimony of the language of chapters 
 xl.-Ixvi., and forms of expression. 
 
 Sec. 1. Huternal Testimony concerning the Authorship. 
 
 (a.) The earliest is a-passage in Ecclus. xlviii. 24. 
 The original Hebrew or Aramaic of Ecclesiasticus, 
 which is not extant, dates back certainly 250 years 
 B.c., if not earlier; and the Greek version which we 
 have in the LXX. is supposed to have been made 
 about B.c. 170, in the reign of Euergetes king of 
 Egypt. In the place named, the writer is reviewing 
 the history of the kings ind prophets of Israel aad 
 Judah. He has come in his summary to Hezekiah, 
 and he says (ver. 18): “In his time Sennacherib came 
 up; .:. but the Holy One heard His people out of 
 heaven, and delivered them by the ministry of Isaiah. 
 
 . For Hezekiah had done the thing that pleased 
 
4 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, 
 as ISAIAH THE PROPHET, who was great and faithful 
 in vision, had commanded him. In his time the sun 
 went backward, and he lengthened the king’s life. 
 He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to 
 pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned 
 in Zion. He showed what should come to pass for 
 ever, and secret things or ever they came.” 
 
 It is argued, and fairly, as the words show, that this 
 language can only refer to the latter part of the book, 
 chapters xl-Ixvi. The very words of the Greek seem 
 to echo the LXX. version of Isa. xl. and ΙΧ]. : wapa- 
 κάλεσε τοὺς πενθοῦντας ἐν Σιών; what is this but a repeti- 
 tion of παρακαλεῖτε, παρακαλεῖτε τὸν λαόν pov, Isa. xl. iF 
 and of τοῖς πενθοῦσι Σιών, Isa. lxi, 3? And again, εἴδε 
 τὰ ἔσχατα, ὑποδείξε τὰ ἐσόμεθα, Keclus. xviii. 24, 25, are 
 repetitions οἵ ἀναγγέλων πρότερον ta ἔσχατα, Isa. xlvi. 
 10; see xli. 11, 28. The writer, moreover, goes on 
 to speak of Josiah’s reign, so that he unmistakeably 
 refers the portion in which the prophet “comforts Zion, 
 and shows what shall come to pass, and secret things,” 
 to Isaiah the son of Amoz, who lived in the reign of 
 Hezekiah. 
 
 It may, indeed, be said that the son of Sirach found 
 Isa. xl-lxvi. as we find them, included in the same 
 book under the name of Isaiah, and took it for granted, 
 without inquiry, that they were from his pen. Never- 
 theless the fact remains, and it is an important witness, 
 that a Jewish writer, 250 years B.c., without misgiving 
 or hesitation, calls Isaiah the author, and places the 
 prophecy in his lifetime, and before Josiah’s reign. He 
 gives no hint whatever that the portion in question 
 was written by another Isaiah a century later; and 
 such an idea was evidently remote from his mind. 
 Now the author of Kcclesiasticus was a pious and 
 learned Jew. The original writer in Hebrew lived 
 
SEC. 1—EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 5 
 
 (as the prologue tells us) “after the people had been 
 led away captive and called home again,” and almost 
 after all the prophets. He was “aman of great dili- 
 gence and wisdom among the Hebrews;” he was “no 
 less famous for great learning.” 
 
 (b.) The second external witness concerning the 
 authorship is Josephus (born ap. 37). In his 
 Antiquities, book xi. 1, he quotes the passage, which 
 we find twice over in the O. T., in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 
 22 93, and Ezrai. 1, 2: “In the first year of Cyrus 
 king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the: 
 mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord 
 stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, and he 
 made proclamation, saying, The Lord God of heaven 
 hath given me all kingdoms of the earth, and He hath 
 charged me to build the house of the Lord.” Regard- 
 ing these words Josephus says: “This was known to 
 Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind 
 him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God 
 had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: ‘My will 
 is that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over 
 many and great nations, send my people back to their 
 own land, and build my temple’ (Isa. xliv. 28). 
 This,” says Josephus, “was foretold by Isaiah one | 
 hundred and forty years before the temple was de- 
 molished. . Accordingly, when Cyrus read this and 
 admired the divine power, an earnest desire seized 
 upon him to fulfil what was so written.” Here it is 
 clear that Josephus attributes the prophecies concern- 
 ing Cyrus (Isa. xliv.) to the prophet Isaiah, who lived 
 one hundred and thirty years before the restoration, and 
 concerning whom he says (book x. chap. 2): “This 
 prophet Isaiah was, by confession of all, a divine and 
 wonderful man in speaking truth; and out of the 
 assurance that he had never written what was false, 
 he wrote down all the prophecies and left them behind 
 
Ὁ AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. Ὁ 
 
 him in books, that their accomplishment might be 
 judged of from the events by posterity.” 
 ον (4) The third external testimony concerning the 
 authorship is furnished by the N. T. quotations. No 
 part of Scripture is so frequently quoted in the N. T. 
 (thirty-five times); but the quotation is often made 
 without naming the prophet. In the following places, 
 however, the prophet is named :— 
 
 (1.) Matt. 111.3: “ This ts he that was spoken of by the 
 prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths 
 straight” (Isa. xl. 8). 
 
 Note-——In the parallel passage, Mark i. 2, the best Mss. 
 read: As τέ is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I 
 send my messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare 
 Thy way before Thee. The voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His 
 paths straight. Here the first words named are not 
 in Isaiah, but in Malachi. Dr. Payne Smith observes, 
 that if the reading be genuine, it is simply a some- 
 what loose way of quoting from two prophets by the 
 name of the greater. Note on the authorship of Isaiah, 
 p. 296. Dean Stanley speaks of it as an exact 
 parallel to the amalgamation of Isa. 1—xxxix. with 
 xl-lxvi. The parallel is apparent only, not real; for 
 there is no trace of any objection or correction of the 
 union under one name of the two great halves of the 
 book of Isaiah, whereas the reading found in some 
 MSS., “as it is written in the prophets,” proves that 
 the amalgamation was objected to in Mark, and the 
 error corrected. 
 
 (2.) Matt. viii. 17: “ That it might be fuljilled which 
 was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our 
 infirmities and bare our sicknesses” (Isa. liii. 4). 
 
 (3.) Matt. xii. 18: “ That it might be fulfilled which 
 was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant 
 whom I have chosen” (Isa. xii. 1). 
 
SEC. 1.—EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. T 
 
 (4.) Luke iii. 4-6: “As it ts written in the book of 
 the words of Isaiah the*prophet, saying, The voice of one 
 crying in the wilderness,” ete. (Isa. x]. 3-5). 
 
 (5.) John i. 23: “As said the prophet Esaias, I am 
 the voice of one,” ete. (Isa. xl. 3). 
 
 Here is a passage quoted by Matthew, Luke, and 
 John, and attributed by each. of them to Esaias, and 
 in John put as the quotation of the Baptist himself. 
 
 (6.) John xii. 388: “That the saying of Esaias the 
 prophet might be fulfilled which he spake, Lord, who hath 
 believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord 
 revealed ?” (Isa. liii. 1). 
 
 (7.) Rom. x. 16: “For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath 
 believed our report?” (Isa. lili. 1). 
 
 (8.) Rom. x. 20, 21: “ Esaias ts very bold, and saith, 
 Iwas found of them that sought me not,” etc. (Isa. lxv. 
 1.3). 
 
 Here we have St. John and St. Paul each twice 
 attributing quotations from our chapters to Isaiah. 
 Some weight certainly belongs to this indirect testi- 
 mony. The N. T. writers evidently regarded Isaiah as 
 the author of chapters xl.-Ixvi. It may be suggested 
 that the great unnamed may have borne the name οὗ. 
 Isaiah as well as the author of the earlier portion. | 
 But we have no trace elsewhere of another pro- 
 phet of the same name living during the captivity ; 
 and, moreover, these N. T. writers quote from the 
 earlier portion in the same manner, without the 
 slightest hint that “the prophet Esaias” in the one 
 case is a different man from “the prophet Esaias” in 
 the other. 
 
 (d.) A fourth external argument is derived from 
 two indirect references to this portion in N. T. his- 
 tory. (1) In Luke iv. 17, we are told that in the 
 synagogue at Nazareth there was delivered to Jesus 
 the book of the prophet Esaias. And when He had 
 
 κε 
 
8 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 opened the book, He found the place where it was 
 written, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,” ete. 
 (xi. 1, 2). It is clear that this portion was then in- 
 cluded in the book named the Book of the prophet 
 Esaias. (2) In Acts viii. 28, we read that the Ethiopian 
 eunuch was returning, and sitting in his chariot, read Esaias 
 the prophet. Philip heard him read the prophet Esaias. 
 The place of the Scripture which he read was this: He was 
 led as a lamb to the slaughter (chap. liii. 7, 8). The 
 words of the supposed great unnamed are here twice 
 over called the words of the prophet Esaias. 
 
 Against this it is urged, that already the two great 
 portions—that by Isaiah and that by the great un- 
 named exile prophet—were already united in the one 
 book under the one name, and that no more than this 
 can be inferred from these references. The book is 
 named, not the writer. But the quotations are made 
 ' expressly as the words of the prophet: “Of whom 
 speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other 
 man?” Thus the prophet and not the book is named. 
 In the case of St. Paul’s quotations, five times within 
 the space of two chapters, Rom. ix., x., does the 
 apostle name the prophet. Rom. ix. 27: “ Esaias 
 ‘erieth concerning Israel, Though the number of 
 the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a 
 remnant shall be saved” (Isa. x. 20, 23). Rom. ix. 
 29: “As Hsaias said before, Except the Lord of Hosts 
 had left us a seed,” ete. (Isa. i. 9). These are quota- 
 tions from the earlier portion. But a little further on, 
 in chap. x. 16, he says, ‘“‘They have not all obeyed the 
 gospel, for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our 
 report?” (Isa. liii. 1). And, verse 20, “ Esaias is very 
 bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me 
 not” (chap. Ixv. 1, 2). The Esaias named in the first 
 two places is, in the apostle’s mind, clearly the same 
 person whom he quotes in the last two. It is clear, 
 
SEC. 1.—EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 9 
 
 also, that he means the prophet, not the book merely, 
 for he says, ‘‘ Esaias is very bold, and saith.” In Rom. 
 _ xv. 12 he quotes from the early portion again thus: 
 “Hsaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse” (566. 
 Isa. xi.). 
 
 St. Paul thus, in the same Epistle, within the space 
 of a few chapters, five times quotes from the earlier 
 and later portions, attributing the words to the prophet 
 Isaiah. Now, Paul had been brought up at the feet 
 of Gamaliel. He had been fully instructed in the 
 Scriptures, and he must have known if the learned 
 Jews of his day recognised two Isaiahs, or the absorp- 
 tion of the prophecies of a very great yet unnamed exile 
 into those of the first Isaiah. With all these oppor- 
 tunities of knowing, he evidently regarded the book 
 as Isaiah’s throughout; and as Cicero said of Plato (7166. 
 Disp. i. 17), a Christian may naturally feel disposed 
 to say, Non invitus cuM PAULO APOSTOLO erraverim. 
 
 (e.) The last class of external testimonies to be 
 named is in the lists which are given of the O. T. 
 books in the LXX., in Josephus, and in other Jewish 
 writings. We find Isaiah named as one distinct book, 
 and placed first among the major prophets. There 
 is, indeed, one exception—the case of the Baby- 
 lonian Talmud, bearing date about the fifth century. 
 It names Isaiah as one complete book, yet places him 
 after Jeremiah and Ezekiel, thus: 1st, Jeremiah; 2d, 
 Ezekiel; 3d, Isaiah; 4th, The twelve minor prophets. 
 Dr. Stanley Leathes, quoting the Talmud, says, “ It 
 places Jeremiah after Ezekiel, because the Books of 
 Kings end in the desolation; Jeremiah is wholly 
 occupied with it, Ezekiel begins with it, and Isaiah is 
 wholly occupied with the consolation.” However it 
 be explained, this single instance cannot outweigh the 
 testimony of all the other lists extant put together, 
 which unanimously place Isaiah first among the major 
 
10 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 prophets, before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is the 
 arrangement of the Septuagint, of the Vulgate, of 
 Josephus, and of the Jerusalem Talmud. 
 
 Sec. 2. The Standing-point of the Writer, as witnessed by 
 the Prophecy ttself. 
 
 By the standing-point of the writer are meant the 
 circumstances of time and place by which he was 
 surrounded, or in the midst of which he ideally took 
 his stand when he wrote the prophecy. Gesenius and 
 Ewald, with a host of followers, unhesitatingly affirm 
 that, as witnessed by the prophecy itself, the writer's 
 standing-place is in the Babylonish exile; that he 
 writes himself an exile among exiles—among the 
 exiles either at Babylon, as Gesenius affirms, or in 
 Egypt looking on from afar, as Ewald maintains. 
 ‘All the allusions,” writes Dean Stanley, “‘ presuppose 
 that Jerusalem (not: is to be, but) has been already 
 destroyed, that the persons to be consoled (not: will be, 
 but) are already in exile, that Babylon (not: will be, 
 but) is in the height of her power, and that Cyrus and 
 his conquests are (not: merely foreseen in some distant 
 future, but) already well known.” Knobel argues 
 that the writer shows acquaintance with the divisions 
 and parties among the exiles. Some had embraced 
 the idolatry of their captors, and are admonished in 
 the words, ‘“‘ They shall be turned back; they shall be 
 greatly ashamed that trust in graven images” (xlii. 7). 
 Others were in desponding fear; and he asks, ‘‘ Who is 
 among you that feareth the Lord, that walketh in 
 darkness, and hath no light? Let him trust in the 
 name of the Lord, and stay upon his God” (1. 10). 
 At times he complains as he labours among them, 
 “Who hath believed our report?” (1111. 1); but the 
 chief burden of his prophecy is one of comfort and 
 
 
 
SEC. 2.—THE STANDING-POINT OF THE WRITER. PE 
 
 promise: ‘‘ Deliverance is at hand; the warfare is 
 accomplished ; Cyrus is my shepherd: go ye forth from 
 Babylon.” 
 
 So strong and overpowering is this argument, that 
 most of those who, following the external evidence, 
 maintain that Isaiah the son of Amoz was the writer, 
 propound a theory of prophecy. strange and startling to 
 account for the phenomenon. They believe that the 
 prophet was actually transported in vision out of his 
 own time onwards 130 years to the time of the exile; 
 and being thus placed by the Spirit of God in an ideal 
 present, that he describes the circumstances around him 
 in vision, comforts the exiles, and makes that ideal 
 present a standing-point for his prophecy concerning 
 the future deliverance. ‘‘In the whole of the second 
 part,” says Hengstenberg (Christology, ii. 169), “the 
 prophet as a rule takes his stand in the time foretold 
 in former prophecies,—the time when Jerusalem is 
 captured, the temple destroyed, the country desolated, 
 and the people carried away. It is in this time that 
 he thinks, feels, and acts; it has become a present to 
 him; from it he looks out into the future.” He goes on 
 to propound his theory thus: “The prophets did not 
 prophesy in the state of rational reflection, but of 
 extasis. They did not behold the future from a distance ; 
 they were rapt into the future. . . . They take their 
 stand in the more immediate future, and this becomes 
 to them the ideal present, from which they direct the 
 eye to the distant future.” Dr. Payne Smith in like 
 manner speaks of “‘ Israel in exile” as “‘ Isaiah’s leading 
 thought,” the thought “uppermost in Isaiah’s mind 
 throughout,” “the starting-point of these last twenty- 
 seven chapters” (‘‘ Prophecy a Preparation for Christ,” 
 Lect. viii.). . 
 
 This theory of rapture seems too much like an ex- 
 pedient to meet a difficulty; and Dean Stanley justly 
 
12 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 describes it as ‘‘an hypothesis without any other 
 example in the Scriptures.” Hengstenberg does indeed 
 refer to Deut. xxxii., to the earlier portions of Isaiah, 
 and to the minor prophets, where he considers his 
 theory illustrated. But the places he refers to can be 
 explained without it. It is, in fact, a bold conjecture 
 introduced to meet an apparent difficulty. 
 
 Instead, then, of at once accepting it, ἰοῦ us face the 
 difficulty itself, examine the passages in question, and 
 see whether, upon the supposition that external evi- 
 dence concerning the authorship is reliable, they oblige 
 us to such a resort. | 
 
 Four series of passages are to be noticed and traced. 
 
 1. PASSAGES WHICH DESCRIBE A STATE OF THINGS 
 CORRESPONDING, NOT WITH THE EXILE, BUT WITH A TIME 
 WHEN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH STILL EXISTED, AND THE 
 TEMPLE SERVICE WAS POSSIBLE. 
 
 xiii. 22-24: ‘But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; 
 but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. Thou hast not 
 brought me the small cattle of thy burnt-offerings, neither 
 hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices.” This reproach 
 would be inappropriate if addressed to exiles, to whom 
 sacrifices were impossible, owing to their poverty and 
 their distance from the temple. It is suited only to 
 people still in Palestine, and within reach of temple 
 worship. 
 
 lvi. 2, 4, 6. Here Sabbath-keeping is urged, and the 
 reward promised: “ J will give them in my house, and within 
 my walls, a name better than of sons and daughters.” 
 
 lvi. 9-12: “All ye beasts of the field, come to devour ; 
 yea, all ye beasts of the forest. His watchmen are blind ; 
 they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot 
 bark ; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, greedy 
 dogs, which cannot have enough, and shepherds that cannot 
 understand.” Here the prophets and priests of the 
 nation are described as neglecting their duty, giving 
 
mS 
 
 SEC. 2,—THE STANDING-POINT OF THE WRITER. 19 
 
 themselves to self-indulgence, and so exposing the 
 people that the wolves have only to draw near and 
 devour the sheep. 
 
 Ivil. 1: “* The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it 
 to heart ; and merciful men are taken away, none considering 
 that the righteous 1s taken away from the evil to come.” 
 Here the evil is spoken of not as past, but as approach- 
 ing; and the words are so obviously appropriate, not to 
 exiles under the tyranny of a foreign oppressor, but to 
 the people still in their own land given up to sin, and 
 
 ‘with but few righteous among them, that Ewald and 
 
 other advocates of the later authorship regard this 
 section, lvi. 9-lvii. 12, as an earlier fragment incorpor- 
 ated, a fragment by a prophet in Manasseh’s reign. 
 
 lvl. 4, 5: “ Against whom do ye sport yourselves . . . 
 enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying 
 children in the valleys and under the clefis of the rocks.” 
 This description, inapplicable to Babylon with its vast 
 plains, is particularly appropriate to describe Palestine. 
 The word °™, wady, or valley, the bed of a torrent dry 
 in summer, and sometimes the river or brook itself, 
 distinctly points to Palestine. The reference is clearly 
 to idolatrous acts committed there, such as were 
 practised in Manasseh’s reign by the people of Jeru- 
 salem in the valley of Hinnom (2 Kings xxi.; 2 Chron. 
 XXXlil.). 
 
 lvilil. 1-3: “‘ Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice like 
 a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and 
 
 . the house of Jacob their sins. Yet they seek me daily, and 
 
 delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, 
 
 and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of 
 
 me ordinances of justice ; they take delight in approaching 
 to God. . . . Behold, in the day of your fast ye find plea- 
 sure, and exact all your labours.” All this is more 
 appropriate to the people still in Judah than to exiles. 
 So throughout the chapter, eg. ver. 13: “ Doing thy 
 
14 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL—LXVI. 
 
 pleasure on my holy day.” Pleasure-taking and exac- 
 tion were not sins accessible to exiles. 
 
 lix. 3: “ Your hands are defiled with blood, and your 
 Jingers with iniquity. None calleth for justice, nor any 
 pleadeth for truth.” Ver. 14: “Judgment is turned away 
 backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen 
 im the street, and equity cannot enter.” 
 
 ἴχν. 2: “J have spread out my hands all day unto a 
 rebellious people, which walketh in a way that is not good, 
 after their own thoughts; a people that provoketh me to 
 anger continually to my face ; that sacrificeth in gardens, 
 and burneth incense on altars of brick ; which remain among 
 the graves, and lodge in the monuments; which eat swine’s 
 flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels ; 
 which say, Stand by thysélf, come not near to me; for 1 am 
 holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a Jive that 
 burneth all the day.” (See also verses 7, PS be τ Bie 
 Jer. xix. 13; Zeph. i. 5. Eating swine’s flesh was an 
 Egyptian, not a Babylonian, practice. These passages 
 bear upon the face of them indications of a state of 
 things among the Jewish people when they were still 
 in their own land, and previous to the final captivity at 
 Babylon. The standing-point of the writer in these 
 words is not among down-trodden exiles needing com- 
 fort, and assured that their deliverance was nigh, but 
 among the obdurate in Palestine. The idolatrous 
 practices referred to are identical with those described 
 and condemned in Isa. i.; Jer. vii. 17, 18;- Hzek. 
 Viil. 
 
 2. PASSAGES BEARING ON THE LOCUS STAND! OF THE - 
 WRITER, WHICH REPRESENT IDOLATRY AS A SIN INTO. 
 WHICH MANY OF THE PEOPLE HAD FALLEN. 
 
 xl. 19, 20: “ The workman melteth a graven image, and 
 the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver 
 chains,” ete. 
 
 xli. 7: “ The carpenter eneouraged the goldsmith, and 
 
SEC. 2.—THE STANDING-POINT OF THE WRITER. 15 
 
 he that smootheth with the hammer him that smote with the 
 anvil,” ete. 
 
 xlvi. 6,7: “ They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh 
 silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith ; and he maketh a 
 god,” ete. 
 
 xlviii. 1: “ Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are 
 called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the 
 waters of Judah; which swear by the name of the Lord, and 
 make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth. They 
 call themselves the holy city. . . . Because I knew that thou 
 art obstinate, and thy neck ts an tron sinew, and thy brow 
 brass; I have even from the beginning declared it unto 
 thee ; lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them ; and 
 my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded 
 them.” ; 
 
 The idolatry described in some of these passages is 
 doubtless that of the heathen, as distinct from Israel; 
 but Israel is in some of them addressed as having 
 fallen into idolatry themselves. They who place the 
 prophecy during the exile, suppose that some of the 
 exiles had adopted the idolatry of Babylon. But we 
 have no evidence beyond these passages that this was 
 the case; and from all we know of their condition as 
 exiles, degraded and enslaved, longing for freedom and 
 deliverance, it is very unlikely that they should adopt 
 the idolatry of their oppressors. It would appear that 
 the immediate result of their captivity was the extinc- 
 tion of that idolatry into which they had sunk in their 
 own land, and of which the captivity was the punish- 
 ment. The reign of Ahaz was distinguished by the 
 spread of idol worship. And though Hezekiah sup- 
 pressed it, when Manasseh came to the throne it openly 
 broke forth. ‘ Manasseh,” we read, “did that which 
 was evil, according to the abominations of the heathen. He 
 built up altars for Baal, . . . he set up a graven image in 
 the grove. He made Judah to sin with his idols ; he set a 
 
16 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 carved image, the idol which he -had made, in the house of 
 God. He made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 to err, and to do worse than the heathen” (2 Kings xxi. ; 
 2 Chron. xxxiil.). His son Amon, moreover, “ sacrificed 
 unto all the carved images which Manasseh had made” 
 (2 Chron. xxxiii. 22). And of Josiah, the successor of 
 Amon, we read: ‘ He brake down the altars and the images ; 
 the carved images and the molten images he brake in pieces, 
 and made dust of them” (xxxiv. 4). The description thus 
 given of Manasseh’s reign, into which Isaiah probably 
 lived, presents a state of things exactly answering to 
 the admonitions of these later chapters. A remnant 
 among the people was stedfast in the worship of 
 Jehovah, and suffered for their stedfastness, but the 
 majority had fallen into the grossest idolatry. 
 
 3. PASSAGES DESCRIBING THE PEOPLE IN CAPTIVITY, 
 AND THE CITIES OF JUDAH LAID, WASTE. 
 
 xlii. 22, 24: “ This is a people robbed and spoiled ; they 
 are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in 
 prison-houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth ; 
 for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. Who gave Jacob for 
 a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the Lord, He 
 against whom we have sinned ?” 
 
 xiii. 28: ‘‘ Therefore I have profaned the princes of the 
 sanctuary, and given Jacob to the curse and Israel to 
 reproaches.” 
 
 xliv. 26: ‘That saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be 
 inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and 
 1 will raise up the decayed places thereof.” 
 
 li. ὃ: “ The Lord shall comfort Zion: He will comfort 
 the waste places thereof.” 
 
 Ixiv. 10,11: ‘ The holy cities area wilderness, Zion is a 
 wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation. Our holy and beautiful 
 house, where our fathers praised Thee, is burned up with 
 fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste.” 
 
 It is upon the strength of these passages that some 
 
SEC, 2.—THE STANDING-POINT OF THE WRITER. 1% 
 
 of the ablest critics place the propbecy during the 
 exile. And at first sight the argument seems con- 
 clusive, even in the face of external testimony and 
 internal evidence pointing to a state of things in 
 Manasseh’s reign. 
 
 But let us keep in view the following considera- 
 tions :— 
 
 A. Language almost, if not quite, as strong is used 
 concerning the people of the land in those portions of 
 the earlier prophecies which are acknowledged on all 
 hands to have come from Isaiah. 
 
 1. 7,8: “ Your country is desolate, your cities are burned 
 with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, 
 and it ts desolate, and overthrown by strangers. And the 
 daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a 
 lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.” Ver. 
 21: “ How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was 
 full of judgment ; righteousness lodged in it ; but now mur- 
 derers.” Ver.27: ‘Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, 
 and her converts with righteousness.” 
 
 11. 8: ““ Jerusalem is ruined ; Judah is fallen.” 
 
 v. 13: “ Therefore my people are gone into captivity.” 
 Ver. 25: “ Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against 
 His people, and He hath smitten them: and the halls did 
 tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the 
 streets.” 
 
 vi. 11,12: “ Then said I, Lord, how long? And He 
 answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and 
 the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 
 and the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a 
 great forsaking in the midst of the land.” 
 
 x. 20, 21: “ The remnant of Israel, and such as are 
 escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay 
 upon him that smote them ; but shall stay upon the Lord. 
 The remnant shall return unto the mighty God.” 
 
 xi. 12: “ The Lord shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, 
 B | 
 
18 -AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four 
 corners of the earth.” 
 
 xxii. 4: “Labour not to comfort me, because of the 
 spoiling of the daughter of my people.” 
 
 These passages occur in those portions which all 
 admit to have come from the pen of Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz; and if he could have written thus in his earlier 
 days, we need not wonder at similar language in his 
 later. 
 
 B. The fact must not be forgotten, that already in 
 Isaiah’s time the final catastrophe of conquest and 
 captivity had taken place in the case of ten out of the 
 twelve tribes. When the prophet speaks of “ the seed 
 of Jacob and the remnant of Israel,” we have no right 
 to limit his descriptions as if they referred to Judah 
 only. It was in the middle of Isaiah’s ministry, in 
 the year 722, that final ruin came upon the largest 
 and most powerful portion of the chosen people. In 
 2 Kings xvii. we read: “ The children of Israel set them- 
 selves up images and groves m every high hill, and under 
 every green tree: they went after the heathen that were 
 round about them. And in the ninth year of Hoshea king 
 of Israel, the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried 
 Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and 
 in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the 
 Medes. The Lord was very angry with Israel, and re- 
 moved them out of His sight: and there was none left save 
 the tribe of Judah only. Also Judah kept not the com- 
 mandments of the Lord, but walked in the statutes of Israel 
 which they made. And the Lord rejected all the seed of 
 Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand 
 of spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight.” Now 
 a captivity like this, affecting all the seed of Israel 
 save the tribe of Judah, must have been in the pro- 
 phet’s eyes, occurring in his own day, a terrible calamity, 
 impressing his mind, colouring his ministry, and giving 
 
SEC. 2.—THE STANDING-POINT OF THE WRITER. 19 
 
 full warrant for and sufficiently explaining most of the 
 expressions concerning captivity occurring in his later 
 prophecies. 
 
 C. It must not be forgotten, further, that Judah 
 herself had suffered serious devastation in Hezekiah’s 
 reign, and after the captivity of the Ten Tribes. 
 Sennacherib, we are told, “in -the fourteenth year of 
 Hezekiah’s reign, came up against all the fenced cities of 
 Judah, and took them” (2 Kings xviii. 18). It is here 
 expressly stated that the cities of Judah were taken 
 by Sennacherib, and there is nothing improbable in 
 supposing that they were also laid waste. The words 
 laid waste (@8Y) and desolate ("29v’)—the very words 
 which contain the strength of the argument, see lxiv. 9 
 —occur in chapter vi. 11 as spoken to the prophet at 
 his call, and in the prophecy of chapter i. 7, “ Your 
 country is desolate.” Hezekiah, moreover, says in his 
 prayer: “Of a truth they have laid waste all the nations 
 and their countries.” The cities of Judah were at this 
 time taken, and Jerusalem alone was spared. Nay, 
 even Jerusalem was spoiled; for Hezekiah gave the 
 king of Assyria all the silver that was found in the 
 house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s 
 house. He cut off the gold also from the doors of the 
 temple of the Lord, and from the pillars, and gave it 
 to the king of Assyria. The fortification walls, within 
 which Hezekiah and his people took refuge, were of 
 . narrow circumference, and left a large portion of the 
 city outside, including Mount Zion, exposed to the 
 devastation and plunder of the enemy. Thus we may 
 give full force to the language describing devastation 
 as true in Isaiah’s day, and thus it may be explained 
 side by side with other expressions which describe the 
 people as still in Zion (lxi. 3): “ 70 give them that mourn 
 in Zion, beauty for ashes ;” “and watchmen on the walls 
 of Jerusalem” (1xii. 6). 
 
20 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 D. A fourth consideration in explanation of the 
 language of this prophecy is, that the use of the tenses 
 in Hebrew is such as to warrant our taking preterites 
 oftentimes as futures, and what is spoken of as past,as 
 still to be. ‘“‘ Grammar has long ago,” says Hengsten- 
 berg, “acknowledged this fact, for it speaks of preeterita 
 prophetica.” Regarding this tense, Mr. Driver (The Use 
 of the Tenses in Hebrew, p. 15) says: “The most special 
 and remarkable use of the perfect tense is as the 
 prophetic perfect. Its abrupt appearance confers upon 
 descriptions of the future a most forcible and expressive 
 touch of reality, and imparts in the most vivid manner 
 a sense of the certainty with which the occurrence of 
 a yet future event is contemplated by the speaker.” 
 The tense is called the perfect of certainty. Any remain- 
 ing statements that cannot be accounted for as historical 
 descriptions of the state of things in Isaiah’s lifetime 
 are capable of fair explanation in this way. We have 
 an example in the very outset of the prophecy: “She 
 hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her 
 sins.” 
 
 4, PASSAGES IN WHICH BaBYLON AND CYRUS ARE 
 MENTIONED. 
 
 ‘“ Babylon,” says Gesenius, ‘‘is represented as already 
 in the height of its power; nay, even as approaching its 
 overthrow by Cyrus. In Isaiah’s mouth such utter- 
 ances would have been incomprehensible and object- 
 less.” The passages in which Babylon or Cyrus is 
 named occur only in the first of the three parts into 
 which these later prophecies are divided. There is no 
 mention of either after chapter xlviii.; and before that 
 chapter the name Babylon occurs pale four times, and 
 the name Cyrus twice. 
 
 sli. 14: “ Hor your sake I have sent to Baby ylon, oa 
 have brought down their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose 
 cry is in the ships.” 
 
SEC. 2.—THE STANDING-POINT OF THE WRITER. 21 
 
 xlvi. 1: ‘Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin 
 daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground: no throne, O 
 daughter of the Chaldeans.” 
 
 xlviil. 14: “ The Lord will do His pleasure on Baby- 
 lon, and His arm shall be on the Chaldeans.” Ver. 20: 
 “Go ye forth from Babylon, flee ye from the Chal- 
 deans.” 
 
 The Chaldeans are named again in one other place, 
 xlvii. 5: “Θέ thow silent, and get thee into darkness, O 
 daughter of the Chaldeans : for thou shalt no more be called 
 The lady of kingdoms.” And the idols of Babylon are 
 named in xlvi. 1: “ Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth.” 
 
 Now, apart from any miraculously given knowledge 
 of the future, it need be no matter of surprise that 
 Isaiah the son of Amoz should speak of Babylon, 
 and represent it as a great power. Already in his 
 days it had become a self-asserting dominion, side by 
 side with Assyria. It already possessed a dynasty of 
 its own, and claimed independence. In Isa. xxxix. 
 we are told of a visit paid to Hezekiah by the deputies 
 of Merodach Baladan king of Babylon, to congratulate 
 him on his recovery, and to show friendship to a people 
 before whose city the Assyrian host had been so 
 signally destroyed. The end of that chapter contains 
 a prophecy which is represented distinctly as Isaiah's 
 to Hezekiah, foretelling the Babylonish exile. ‘ Then 
 said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of 
 Hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine 
 house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until 
 this day, shall be carried to Babylon ; nothing shall be left, 
 saith the Lord.” Here is a prophecy expressly declared 
 to be Isaiah’s, for rejecting which as his there is no 
 reason save that involved in the denial of prophetic 
 revelation altogether. Grant the possibility of pro- . 
 phecy in this sense, and we must accept this statement 
 of chapter xxxix. 6 as bond-fide genuine. And with 
 
22 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 this statement before us, we cannot be surprised to 
 find references to Babylon as the power to which Israel 
 is in bondage, and from which Jacob is to be delivered, 
 in the later writings of the same prophet. When the 
 kingdom of Israel had been carried captive, we are told 
 (2 Kings xvii. 24, 80) that men from Babylon came to 
 dwell in the deserted cities of Israel, and that they 
 brought their idolatry with them. It is stated, more- 
 over, in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11, that Manasseh, Hezekiah’s 
 successor, was bound with fetters, and carried captive 
 to Babylon. These references indicate the already 
 growing ascendancy of Babylon; and it cannot be 
 an impossible thing, nay, it is natural to find Isaiah 
 speaking as the writer of these later chapters does 
 speak, as one familiar with the Babylonish power and 
 the Babylonish idols. The mention of Cyrus as the 
 deliverer of the exiles can be explained only by the 
 supposition of a miraculous revelation; and this would 
 still be necessary in the case of a writer living during 
 the exile, and before the conquests of Cyrus, and his 
 decree for the return of the exiles. It is to be remem- 
 bered that Cyrus is mentioned by name twice only, 
 and this in a single paragraph, xliv. 28, xlv. 1: 
 “ That saith to Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform 
 all my pleasure. Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to 
 Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden.” There is also a 
 reference to him, but without name, xli. 2: “ Who hath 
 raised up the righteous man from the East?” and xlvi. 11, 
 calling ‘‘a ravenous bird from the East, the man that 
 executeth my counsel from a far country.” The prophet 
 knows the name Koresh, and no more; all is indistinct 
 and general—no such references to the conquests of 
 Cyrus as might be looked for from a contemporary. 
 The name Koresh itself is originally not a proper name, 
 but an honorary title, explained by Greek writers as 
 signifying “the sun,”—a title given to Persian kings. 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
SEC. 3.—-RELATION OF THE WRITER TO JEREMIAH, ETC. 253 
 
 Cyrus, moreover, had originally another name, Agra- 
 dates ; and he is supposed to have assumed this title 
 Cyrus when the prophecies were already known to — 
 him. Considering these things, there is really no 
 insurmountable difficulty in the statements made about 
 him, and no necessity for supposing a prophetic revela- 
 tion more wonderful and minute than that which is 
 implied in the supposition that the first portion came 
 from Isaiah ; omitting, that is, for argument sake, the 
 disputed ἢ Xill.—xiv. 28, xxi. 1-10, χχῖν.-- ΣΧ Ί]., 
 XXL.) XXXV. i 
 
 Sec. 3. Relation of the Writer to Jeremiah and other 
 Old Testament books. 
 
 As the O. T. contains books, the authorship and 
 date of which are clearly determined and universally 
 acknowledged,—books containing prophecies similar to 
 those occurring in these later chapters, and referring to 
 the same events,—a comparison of these should in some 
 degree help us in determining the writer's locus stande. 
 
 Foremost among these are the ‘prophecies of Jere- 
 miah, who lived at the date of the exile. It is a 
 significant fact that Jeremiah is not named once in our 
 chapters, nor is any allusion made to his prophecies. 
 If these chapters were written after his time, during 
 the exile, or near its close, references to so great a 
 prophet, and so important a book bearing on the 
 expectations of the exiles, would be most natural. 
 Indeed, we can hardly understand how any exile 
 prophet could avoid the reference. For example,— 
 
 In Jer. xxv. 11, 12 we have this prophecy: “ These 
 nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And 
 it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, 
 that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, 
 saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the 
 Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.” 
 
24 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 Again, xxix. 10: “ Thus saith the Lord, After seventy 
 years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and 
 perform my good word toward you, in causing you to 
 return to this place.” 
 
 These words certainly read like a reference to the 
 promises of our chapters as already existing: J. will 
 visit you, and perform my good word toward you. But 
 the point to be specially noted is the fact that in our 
 chapters no mention whatever is made of a prophecy 
 already existing, and repeatedly made by Jeremiah at 
 the beginning of the exile, fixing the duration of it at 
 seventy years. If these chapters were the work of a 
 writer living after Jeremiah, surely it is unlikely that 
 he could, in dealing with the subject, refrain from all 
 allusion to the existence of such a prophet, and to the 
 very definite prediction of a seventy years’ limit to the 
 exile. 
 
 Again, in Jeremiah we meet with frequent mention 
 of the great Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. The 
 Babylonian inscriptions prove how noted and powerful 
 a king he was, and confirm the representations in the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles as to his close connec- 
 tion with the Babylonish captivity. Jeremiah often 
 names him, e.g.,— 
 
 xxvil. 6, 8: “7 have given all these lands into the hand 
 of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, my servant. And 
 it shall come to pass, that the nation which will not serve 
 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and that will not put 
 their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that 
 nation will I punish, saith the Lord.” 
 
 There are no fewer than ten distinct references in 
 Jeremiah to King Nebuchadnezzar, which need not be 
 cited here. But the argument is obvious; if our 
 chapters were written during the exile, how are we to 
 explain the absence of his name, and of all reference 
 to him ? 
 
SEC. 3.—RELATION OF THE WRITER TO JEREMIAH, ETC. 25 
 
 While, moreover, our chapters lack reference to 
 Jeremiah’s prophecies, the Book of Jeremiah contains 
 references indirect, yet real, to ourchapters. The most 
 striking of these are in Jer. 1. and li. Here we have 
 a prophecy concerning the judgment of Babylon and” 
 the redemption of Israel: ‘“ Babylon is taken, Bel 2s 
 confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are 
 confounded, her images are broken in pieces” (verse 2). 
 “ Remove out of the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of 
 the land of the Chaldeans” (verse 8). These words are 
 echoes of what we read in Isa. xlvi.and xlvil. “So 
 strong,” says Delitzsch, “15 the indication of dependence 
 upon Isaiah, that Movers, Hitzig, and de Wette regard 
 the anonymous author of Isa. x].—Ixvi.as the interpolator 
 of the prophecy in Jeremiah. But Jeremiah also 
 contains echoes of Isa. xlil., xiv., Xxi., xxxiv., and is 
 throughout a mosaic of earlier prophecies.” The same 
 writer refers to Jer. x. 1-16, concerning the nothing- 
 ness of the gods of the nations, as strikingly similar 
 to Isa. xli. 7, xliv. 12-15, xlvi. 7; and he argues 
 that this passage bears internal evidence of having 
 come from Jeremiah himself, who adopted it from 
 Isaiah. A similar resemblance is traceable between 
 the words of consolation, Jer. xxx. 10,11: ““ Therefore 
 fear not thou, my servant Jacob, saith the Lord, neither be 
 dismayed, O Israel,” see Jer. xlvi. 27, 28, and what we 
 find in Isa. xli. 10, xliv.2. These portions of Jeremiah 
 contain several internal proofs of having come from his 
 pen. Thus Jeremiah fuses, as Delitzsch says, the tones 
 of Isaiah with his own. 
 
 We have next to examine the relation of these later 
 prophecies to the Book of Mican. Micah was con- 
 temporary with Isaiah, and lived in the days of Jotham, 
 Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. ‘ Throughout 
 Micah’s prophecy,” says Dr. Pusey, Minor Prophets, 291, 
 “the future captivity and dispersion are either predicted 
 
26 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 or assumed as the basis of the prediction of good. 
 Throughout, we see the contemporary of the prophet 
 Isaiah. Besides that great prediction, Isa. 11. 2, which 
 - Isaiah inserted verbally from Micah, we see them as it 
 ‘were side by side. ‘The more to establish the faith, 
 God willed that Isaiah and Micah should speak 
 together as with one mouth, and use such argument as 
 might the more convict all rebels,’ Carpzov, Int. p. 
 365, in Hiivernick, ii. 364.” 
 
 Now, without adopting in their full force the state- 
 ments here made, they certainly confirm the external 
 testimony to the Isaiah authorship of the later prophe- 
 cies, and modify the objections raised upon internal 
 grounds, if we find in Micah similar language and 
 thought. Micah, for example, foretells the Babylonish 
 captivity and deliverance from it, iv. 10: “ Be in pam, 
 and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, ike a woman 
 in travail: for now thou shalt go forth out of the city, and 
 thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to 
 Babylon ; there shalt thou be delivered ; there the Lord shall 
 redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.” 
 
 Micah describes the devastation of Jerusalem and 
 Judah, i. 9: ‘ Her wound (Samaria’s) is incurable ; it rs 
 come unto Judah: it is come unto the gate of my people, 
 even to Jerusalem.” Ver. 12: “ Evil came down from the 
 Lord unto the gate of Jerusalem.” ii. 4: “In that day 
 shall one lament with a doleful lamentation, and say, We be 
 utterly spoiled.” Ver. 10: “ Arise, and depart ; for this 15 
 not your rest: because tt is polluted.” Ver.12: “I will 
 surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather 
 the remnant of Israel.” Thus restoration is foretold. 
 The names of Jacob and Israel are used in Micah and 
 in our chapters to denote alike and unitedly Israel and 
 Judah; the expressions, the house of Jacob, the house of 
 Israel, repeatedly occur with reference to the entire 
 nation. In Micah iii. 8 there is an expression parallel 
 
SEC. 3.—RELATION OF THE WRITER TO JEREMIAH, ETC. 27 
 
 with Isa. lvili. 1: “Zam full of power by the Spirit of 
 the Lord . . . to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and 
 to Israel his sin.” Micah iii. 12: “ Therefore shall Zion 
 be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps,” 
 followed by the great prophecy of restoration common 
 to Isaiah and Micah. Now in Jer. xxvi. 18 we read: 
 * Micah the Morasthite prophesied-in the days of Hezekiah 
 king of Judah, saying, Zion shall be plowed like a field, 
 and Jerusalem shall become heaps.” 
 
 The Book of Micah, therefore, is an instance of a 
 prophecy undeniably written in Hezekiah’s time, and 
 closely resembling the later portion of Isaiah in those 
 very parts which are objected to as incompatible with 
 the Isaiah authorship,—a prophecy in which the chosen 
 people are called Jacob and Israel, the ruin of Jerusalem 
 and Zion foretold, the exile in Babylon and deliverance 
 therefrom predicted,—a prophecy which has, like our 
 chapters, a predominance of comfort, and is large and 
 flowing in its descriptions of mercy to come. 
 
 The next book with which our prophecy may be 
 compared is Nanum, who is usually placed in Hezekiah’s 
 reign. The point to be noted is, that both portions of 
 the Book of Isaiah stand in the same relation to Nahum, 
 and contain similarities of expression. Compare 
 Nahum ii. 4, 5 with chapter xlvii. ; Nahum ii. 1 with li. 
 7; and at the same time Nahum ii. 11 with xxiv. 1; 
 Nahum ui. 13 with xix. 6. (See Dr. Pusey on Nahum, 
 p- 871, note.) 
 
 As to ZEPHANIAH, who prophesied in Josiah’s reign, 
 it has been said, ‘‘ If any one would see the utterances 
 of the prophets in brief space, let him read Zephaniah.” 
 He quotes and gathers from other prophets before him; 
 this is the characteristic of his prophecy. Now we find 
 the following points of resemblance between him and 
 our chapters. Thus, Zeph. ii. 15 = xlvii. 8, the 
 word 19, joyous, in particular, being distinctively an 
 
23 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 Isaiah word. Zeph. iii. 10 = Ixvi. 20, and also in the 
 words, beyond the rivers of Cush, parallel with Isa. xviii. 1. 
 
 There are two other O. T. books into which the late 
 date assigned to our chapters obliges us to look,— 
 namely, Ezekiel and Daniel. EzexieL prophesied 
 during the early years of the exile, and we should 
 expect to find some points of resemblance between a 
 work written then and one written in the later years 
 of the exile. But what we most remark is the striking 
 contrast. We pass into different scenes and times as 
 we pass from our chapters to Ezekiel. Hzekiel is care- 
 ful to note repeatedly the year and month of the 
 captivity. When he speaks, he is careful to reckon 
 (just as a pious exile might be expected to do) the 
 days and years of his captivity. xxiv. 1: ‘ Again, the 
 ninth year, in the tenth month, the word of the Lord 
 came unto me.” xl. 1: “In the five-and-twentieth year of 
 our captivity, in the beginning of the year, on the tenth day 
 of the month.” Ezekiel three times mentions Daniel 
 (xiv. 14, 20, xxviii. 3), and frequently speaks of the 
 king of Babylon, naming Nebuchadnezzar, xxix. 18, 19, 
 xxx. 10. ‘The atmosphere which Ezekiel breathes” 
 (says Dean Stanley, Jewish Church, τι. 565), “the visions 
 by which he is called to his office, are alike strange to 
 the older period; no longer Hebrew, but Asiatic. No 
 longer the single simple figure of cloud or flame, or 
 majestic human form, which had been the means of 
 conveying the truth of the Divine presence to Moses or 
 Isaiah, but a vast complexity, wheel within wheel, as 
 if corresponding to the new order of a larger, wider, 
 deeper providence now opening before him. The 
 imagery that he sees is that which no one could 
 have used unless he had wandered through the vast 
 halls of Assyrian palaces, and there gazed on all that 
 Assyrian monuments have disclosed to us.” Here is 
 graphically described just what we might expect in a 
 
SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. 29 
 
 prophet living during the exile. But how totally 
 different from what we find in Isaiah’s later chapters! 
 No reference to Daniel, no mention of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 no reckoning of the weary years of exile, no reflection 
 or shadow of the great country in which the exiles lived. 
 
 The same contrast presents itself in the Book of 
 DanieLt. Whichever of the two widely-separated dates 
 be assigned to the book, it is clearly full of historical 
 allusions and descriptions appropriate to the circum- 
 stances of the Jews in exile; and the entire absence 
 of these from our chapters is a phenomenon difficult to 
 be accounted for by those who would place the writer 
 in Babylon, or in the later years of the Babylonish 
 captivity. 
 
 Sec. 4. Testimony of the Language. 
 
 A. Words peculiar to these later chapters. (See 
 Gesenius, Davidson, and de Wette-Schrader.) 
 1. 73¥, in xl.-lxvi., my servant, fourteen times; my 
 servants, ten times; his servant, four times 
 (see next Dissertation); servant of Jehovah, 
 twice; xlii. 19, liv. 17. 
 
 But we find 72, though not used in. the same 
 way, in the earlier portion: xiv. 2, xx. 3, my 
 servant Isaiah ; xxii. 20, my servant Elakim ; 
 πκίντ 2, exxvir 9.11 xxxvitdy 24, 30, my 
 servant David. 
 
 2. N22, messenger, of the prophet, xlii. 19; in the 
 plural, Ais messengers, xliv. 26; rendered 
 angel (of his presence), lxiii. 9. 
 
 But compare xiv. 32, the messengers of the 
 nation ; xvill. 2, ye swift messengers; xxx. 4, 
 his messengers; xxxiil. 7, the messengers of 
 peace; xxxvuil. 9, 14, 36. 
 
 Peers, far lands; xl. 15, xy. 1, 5, xlii. 4, 10, 12, 15 
 (islands), xlix. 1, li. 5, lix. 18, lx. 9, lxvi. 19. 
 
30 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 The word occurs, however, in the earlier portion 
 five times: xi. 11, xx. 6, xxiii. 2, 6, xxiv. 15, 
 and in a similar sense. [ 
 
 4. ΡΝ, salvation, victory, xli. 2, 10, xlii. 6, 21, xlv. 
 8, 13, 19, li. 1, 5, 7, lwiii. 2, 8, lix. 4, τ 
 3, Ixil. 1, 2, Ixiv. 5, seventeen times. The 
 usual rendering righteousness is quite as 
 appropriate, and is in some cases the only 
 possible rendering. 
 
 This word occurs with like meaning, i. 21, 26, xi. 
 4, 5, xvi. 5, xxvi. 9, 10, xxxii. 1, eight times. 
 
 ὅ. MIY, righteousness, xlv. 8, 23, 24, xlvi. 12, 13, 
 xiv. Ty 88 yi OF 8, live G4 cae eae 
 (twice), lvii. 12, lviii. 2, lix. 9, 14, 16, LY; 
 lx. 17, lxi. 10, 11, Ixiii. 1, Ixiy. 6, twenty- 
 four times. 
 
 In the earlier portion, similarly, i. 27, v. 7, 16, 
 23, we), as: 22, xxviii. 17) sxc G oy 
 (twice), xxxiii. 5, 15, twelve times. 
 
 6. bev», law, religion, xiii. 1, 3, 4, li. 4; judgment, xl. 
 14,29, Sil 4; ix. 4) 8, αὐ div. ἢ 
 Ivi. 1, Iviii. 2 (twice), lix. 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 
 Ixi. 8, twenty times. 
 
 In the earlier portion, i. 17, 21, 27, iii. 14, 
 av. ἀπ ἢ} LG) aN, οὐ evan Bee geass is 
 KEV 6, 1 7, 26; xaos 1.8 Geoaie τς 
 Xxx. 5, xxxiv. 5, twenty-one times. 
 
 7. ΤΌΣ, to spring forth, to arise. Kal, xiii. 9, xiii. 
 19, xliv. 4, lvili. 8; Hiphil, xlv. 8, lv: 10, 
 io Re Bt 
 
 The verb does not occur in the earlier portion, 
 but is found six times in Genesis. The noun, 
 however, occurs, Isa. iv. 2; ef. Isa. lxi. 11. 
 
 8. δὴ, to call, to preach, xl. 2, 8, 6, 26, xli. 2,4, 9, 25, 
 sli.36;) clin. 1,- 27, shiney wet τἰν 3, 4: 
 xlvi. 11, xlvii. 1, 5, xlviii. 1, 2, 8, 18, 15, 
 
SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. 31 
 
 mhz Loh δεν δ ον δ. δ. lvi. 7, lviii. 
 Ἐν Dy θ Του laine be 14 18; [χ]. 1, 2, 
 3, 6,, brit, 2) 45 by πεῖν 7) lxvs, 1,12, 15, 24, 
 Ixili. 19, Ixvi. 4, fifty-one times. 
 
 In earlier portion, i. 13, 26, iv. 1, vi. 3, 4, 
 vil. 14, vill. 9.8. ix.-6,' xii, 4, xiii. 3, xiv. 20, 
 ποδὶ εἶπ ὁ 1 xo 19. Θ᾽ ei 11}}19 xxx: 7, 
 XxXxl. 4, xxxii. 5, xxxiv. 12, 14, 16, xxxv. 8, 
 xxxvi. 13, xxxvii. 14, twenty-seven times. 
 
 9. UND, from the beginning, xl. 21, xli. 4, 26, xlviii. 
 
 10. 
 
 ft. 
 
 12. 
 
 13. 
 
 16. The word occurs in its ordinary mean- 
 pai de ie dil (τ vay “Gy hi ΤΣ, 
 five times. 
 
 In the earlier portion, vix> occurs, i. 5, 6, 11. 2, 
 vil. 8 (twice), 9 (twice), 20, ix. 14, 15, xv. 2, 
 Vis Go xe, 15, Ἐχυπ fA xix, 10, xxx: 
 17, xxxv. 10, xxxvii. 22, nineteen times. 
 
 nue xh: 22). xby 8 cxlniy 918; xlvi. 9 
 
 eo aly 3: 
 
 In the singular, xli. 4, 27, xliii. 27, xliv. 6, 
 xlvui. 12) 11. 4px s 9) Tei. 4 (pl m.), lv. 
 ΕΙΣ: 
 
 In the earlier, i. 26, ix. 1. 
 
 sins, backward, xlii. 17, xliv. 25, 1. 5, lix. 14, 
 four times; for the after time, xli. 23, xlii. 23, 
 twice. 
 
 In the earlier, i. 4, ix. 12, xxviii. 13, backward, 
 three times. 
 
 NNN, fo come, xii. 5, 28, 25, xliv. 7, xlv. 11, five 
 times ; xxi. 12 (twice), 14, three times. 
 
 VIS DS, ends of the earth, xlv. 22, 111. 10, twice ; 
 often (six times) in Psalms. ~ 
 
 DAN, nothing, xl. 17, xli. 12, 29, xlv. 6, 14, xlvi. 9, 
 xlvii. 8, 10, li. 4, liv. 15. 
 
 In earlier, v. 8, xvi. 4, xxix. 20, xxxiv. 12, 
 four times. 
 
 3 
 
14. 
 
 —_ 
 Or 
 
 16. 
 
 17. 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 
 20. 
 
 21. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 by M3, covenant of the people, xlii. 6, xlix. 8, twice. 
 But 3 occurs also, liv. 10, lv. 3, lvi. 4, 6, 
 lix. 21, lxi. 8, sux times. 
 
 And in earlier, xxiv. 5, xxvii. 15, 18, xxxiil. 
 8, four times. 
 
 ΟΠ nisp, ends of the earth, plural, xlii. 6; singular, 
 
 xi, 10; xiwue20) ἘΠ ΝΟ lx die 
 
 In earlier, 7¥?, v. 26, vil. 3, 18, xii. 5, three 
 times. 
 
 by, young infant, xl. 11, xlix. 15, Ixv. 20. 
 
 The feminine, Πρὶν, xiii. 16. 
 
 Oxi” B20, king of Israel, xliv. 6, once only; king 
 of Jacob, xli. 21, once only. But compare 
 vi. 5, the King, the Lord of hosts ; xxxiil. 17, 
 thine eyes shall see the King; verse 22, the 
 Lord is our King. 
 
 mds, widow, xlvii. 8: I shall sit asa widow. See 
 1G 25, ie a pee ts 
 
 om), to comfort. 
 
 Piel, xl. 1 (twice), xlix. 13, li. 3, 12, 19, li. 9, 
 liv. 11, 1χι. 2, lxvi. 13 (twice). N¢ph., lvii. 
 6, thirteen times. 
 
 In earlier portions, (Niphal) i. 24, (Piel) xii. 1, 
 xxli. 4, three times. 
 
 qn, darkness = prison, acc. to Gesenius, xlii. 7, 
 xlyi, ὁ; xii 9.0 Also” in Jelv: (3, 
 vin. 10, ix.6 95 be 22: 
 
 In earlier, v. 20 (twice), 30, ix. 1, xxix. 18, 
 five times. 
 
 ΝΞ, to create ; 813, Creator. 
 
 The verb, Isa: xl.:26, xl. 90 ἘΞ ΠΑ 4, Σιν. 8, 
 
 12, 18, liv. 16 (twice), eight times. 
 
 The participle, xl: 8, xli. 5, xl. 1, 15, xlv. 
 i, 18, lvii. 19, lxv. 17, 18}aine times. 
 
 In earlier portion, iv. 5, once (eleven times in 
 Genesis). 
 
SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. oe 
 
 22. Sux, to redeem, verb, xliii. 1, xliv. 22, 23, xlviii. 
 0, lit. 3, 9, ΕΠ 9, seven times. 
 
 Participle, sli, 14, ali, 14, xliv. 6, 24, xlvii. 
 4, xlviii. 17, sli. εἰ 96, τς EO liv 5... 8; 
 re 20;- bey ΤΟΙ Teen, 12, aa 4, τ 
 times. 
 
 The verb only once in earlier, xxxv. 9. 
 
 23. We, to save, verb, xlv. 17, 20, 22, xliii. 12, xlvi. 
 G xlvi 1.8. ee 25, fe 1, 16, Batis L599) 
 ae ὅ. 
 
 Participle, xliii. 3, 11, xlv. 15, 21) xlvu. 15; 
 xlix. 26, lx. 16, ae 8. 
 
 Karlier portion, verb, Sve 9} sexx. 18 xsexin 
 22, xxxv. 4, xxxvii. 20, 35, XXXvVili. 20; 
 participle xix. 20. 
 
 24. W3, to bring good tidings, xl. 9 (twice), xli. 27, 11]. 
 7 (twice), Ix. 6, lxi. 1 (not in earlier 
 portion), seven times. (Nine times in 
 
 Samuel.) 
 
 25. 8, to form, xli. 25, xliii. 1, 7, 10, 215s xlive, 2 
 9, 10, 21, 24, xlv. 7, 9 C5) 1, 18 (twice), 
 sie ΤΊ: = fe! ὅν 17, Ixiv. 8, twenty 
 times. 
 
 In earlier, xxii. 11, xxvii. 11, xxix. 16 (twice), 
 xxx. 14, xxxvii. 26, six ieee 
 
 26. M¥B, to break forth into singing, xliv. 23, xlix. 18, 
 Τὴ Dre hinged. wai 12 
 
 In ΠΕΡ xiv. 7, once. 
 
 27. 508, graven mage, xl. 19, 20, xlii. 8, 17, xliv. 9, 
 10, 15, 17, xly/ 20, eit 5, ten times. 
 
 In earlier portion, x. 10, xxi. 9, xxx. 22, three 
 times. 
 
 28. 352, molten image, drink- “affering, xli. 29, xlviii. 5, 
 lvii. 6. 
 
 The verb, xl. 19, xliv. 10. 
 
 In earlier, the verb only, xxix. 105 sexs A 
 
 C 
 
34 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 This list consists of words named as peculiar to 
 these later chapters by Gesenius, de Wette, Knobel, 
 and Dr. Davidson. It will be seen in what degree and 
 manner they are so. Most of them occur in those 
 portions of the earlier, acknowledged to be Isaiah’s, as 
 well as in the later chapters; and the few which are 
 not found in the earlier are not words of later Hebrew, 
 but occur in some of the earliest books. . Were we to 
 take any other book, 6.5. Job or Ruth, and divide it, 
 we should find the very same phenomenon,—words 
 occurring in the earlier which are not in the later, and 
 vice versa. This, therefore, is no proof of difference in 
 authorship. As to the Book of Isaiah, the evidence 
 concerning identity of expression tells, we. submit, 
 for unity of authorship. We have not here to deal 
 with those paragraphs in the earlier which some assign 
 to the time of the exile, chapters xili., xiv., xxiv.— 
 Xxvii.; but so far as we have occasion to quote them, 
 the similarity of language between them and the 
 chapters acknowledged as Isaiah’s tells in favour of 
 their genuineness also. 
 
 B. Later Hebraisms and Chaldaisms. 
 
 1. 19, if, liv. 15. But this is really the interjection 
 behold, occurring even in Gen. 111. 22, xxix. 7, 
 and again in Isa. lix.1. “ When referring 
 to some event as possible (as in Job xu. 14, 
 xxiii. 8), it has almost the force of the con- 
 ditional 7f,” Ewald, sec. 103. Thus it occurs 
 even in Lev. xxv. 20.. 
 
 2. YBN, in the sense of business, πρᾶγμα, xliv. 28, 111]. 
 10, lviii. 8, 18. But, as Delitzsch says, the 
 meaning θέλημα, will or pleasure, is quite ap- 
 propriate. See also xlvi. 10, xlviii. 14, Lxii. 4. 
 
 3. ΝΥ, in the sense of warfare, service, hardship 
 generally, xl. 2. For this use of the word see 
 
SEC, 4 TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE, 35 
 
 Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43; Job vii. 1; 
 and it often signifies war. 
 
 4, Ih, very much, lvi. 12. But this word occurs with 
 its usual meaning, residue, xliv. 19; also in 
 xxxvill. 10. The word signifies, according to 
 Gesenius, to be redundant. See Ps. xvii. 14, 
 Xxxl. 24. 
 
 5.3, to prove, xlviii. 10. This, according to 
 Gesenius, is the primary meaning of the 
 word. It occurs in its ordinary signification, 
 to choose, xl. 20, xli. 8, 9, 24, xiii. 10, xliv. 
 1, 2, xlix. 7, lvi. 4, lviii. 5, 6, xv. 12, lxvi. 
 3, 4. 
 
 6. wea, to feel, to grope, lix. 10. This word occurs 
 nowhere else. We do not find it in the 
 Chaldee portions. It is akin to vw, Gen. 
 XXvil. 12, 22, xxxi. 34, 37; Ex. x. 21; Deut. 
 xxvill. 29; Job v. 14, xii. 25. 
 
 7. 192, to act the priest, to minister, xi. 10. The verb 
 (Piel) cannot be regarded as Chaldee. It 
 occurs often in Exodus. 
 
 8. 03D, deputies, governors, xli. 25. This word occurs 
 in Jer. li. 23, 28. It has not here, as in 
 Daniel, the Chaldee plural, ἢ. Compare 
 nhs, Isa. xxxvi. 9. 
 
 9. 2D, to fall down, to worship (an idol), xliv. 15, 17, 
 19, xlvi. 6. A word not occurring elsewhere 
 save Daniel. It is not, however, in the 
 Chaldee form as in Daniel. 
 
 10. °83, to be defiled, lix. 8, Ixiii. 8. This word occurs 
 in Zeph. iii. 1; Lam. iv. 14; Mal. i. 7. It is 
 Hebrew, and clearly akin to 598, Lev. xxvi. 
 30, 43, 44; 2 Sam. i. 21. 
 
 11. ΠΕΡ, to span, xlviili. 13. The noun occurs, Ex. 
 xxv. 25, xxxvil. 12; 1 Kings vii. 9, 26; Ps. 
 XxXxix. 5 
 
36 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XI..—LXVI. 
 
 12. 723, to surname (to address kindly, Gesen.), xliv. 5, 
 xlv. 4. Occurs in Job xxxii. 21,22. Hebrew. 
 The Chaldee 723 in Ezra is derived from this. 
 
 13. nn, to stretch out, xl. 22. Not elsewhere, but the 
 kindred Τῷ, denoting extension, Ex. x. 3, ete. 
 
 14. my, to bend, li. 14, Ixiii. 1. See Jer. 11. 20, xlviii. 
 15: 
 
 15. Pw3, to kindle (Hiphil), xliv. 15. See Ezek. xxxix. 
 9: Ps: εχ 9: 
 
 16. nn, to afflict, lili. 10. Occurs, xiv. 10, xvii. 
 11: xxeii24, xooxviii 1, 9) ΣΈ ΕΙΣ. ἢ Bee 
 
 commentary. 
 
 17. πὶ, to shout, xin. 11. The noun, Isa.xxiv. 11; 
 Ps. exliv. 14. 
 
 18. iF, bosom, xlix. 22. See Ps. exxxix. 7; Neh. v. 
 13. 
 
 19. ‘nix for ‘AX, liv. 15. In Josh. xiv. 12, 1.6. no sure 
 
 sign of a later usage. 
 
 20. onis for Ons, lix.21. In Josh., Kings, Jer., Ezek. 
 
 See Gesen. Lez. 
 
 21. ‘APN for ‘ANI, Lxiii. 8. 
 
 22. Sind, biephoned. despised, lit. 5. 
 
 Hithpael participle, with n assimilated. The 
 Piel of this verb twice occurs in the earlier 
 portion, i. 4, v. 24, also lx. 14. 
 
 These are the “ΠῚ. Chaldaisms in the later 
 portion. - “ Later Hebraisms” is at most the term that 
 can fairly be applied to any of them, and but few can 
 be thus designated. ‘‘ We are ready to admit,” says 
 Dr. Davidson (Jntrod. ii. 54), “that the diction of the 
 second part of Isaiah is tolerably pure and free from 
 Chaldaisms. . . . There is not enough evidence in the 
 style and diction to show their later origin than Isaiah.” 
 
 C. Words and phrases distinctive of both portions. 
 1. ὙΠῈΡ vine, Holy One of Israel, occurs twenty-five 
 
SEC. 4. TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. an 
 
 times; twelve times in earlier, i. 4, v. 19, 24, 
 ἈΠΕ see Oy τή ce, 10, (xxix, 28,.0} 
 Jacob), xxx. 10012015) xxxi.-1,-xxxvii..23 ; 
 thirteen times in later portion, xli. 14, 16, 
 20. sds, τ τ ν be xiv 4 ἀσινῆ, 17, 
 mix 7: liv.) δ lv. 5, lx: 0. 14. The: phrase 
 seldom occurs elsewhere. In 2 Kings xix. 
 22 it is a repetition of Isaiah’s words. We 
 find it in Ps. Ixxi. 22, lxxviil. 41, lxxxix. 18; 
 Jer. ]. 29, li. 5, ze. five times in the O. T. 
 beyond Isaiah. It is a phrase characteristic 
 
 of the prophet Isaiah; his frequent use of it 
 recalls the vision of chapter vi. The only 
 explanation offered by those who place the 
 author of our chapters in the exile is, that 
 “the great unnamed” borrows it from the 
 earlier. 
 
 2. ΤΙΝΕΣ nim, the Lorp of Hosts, xliv. 6, xlv. 13, xlvii. 
 4, xvii. 2, li. 15, liv. 5, six times. 
 
 It occurs fifty-four times in the earlier portion. 
 
 3. 3% and its participle or noun, occurs fourteen 
 times in the later portion, and seven times in 
 the earlier. In its use there is a reference 
 to Isaiah’s name. 
 
 4, ni 728), or DTN WN, occurring in the middle or 
 end of a statement. Thus saith the Lord, 
 introducing a statement, is usually 77) δὶς 73, 
 or without the 75 (xxxvi. 10), or with "y 
 (xlix. 5). But when saith the Lord is inter- 
 posed in the middle or at the end of a state- 
 ment, we usually have Tim Ὁ, So Jeremiah 
 passim, Ezekiel very often. Isaiah uses this 
 eleven times in earlier, thirteen times in later 
 portion. But we also find (at the end of a 
 statement) TiN Ws, xxii. 14, xxxix. 6, xlv. 13, 
 24, liv. 1, 6, 8, 10, lvii. 19, lix. 21 (twice), 
 
38 
 
 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 lxv. 7, 25, Ixvi. 9, 20, 21, 23, and (in the 
 middle) xlviii. 22, lvii. 21. Other prophets 
 occasionally use this Tim 79x, e.g. Jeremiah 
 six times, Haggai three times, Amos and 
 Malachi often. Still it may be fairly called 
 a peculiarity of Isaiah’s, appearing in both 
 portions. But in addition to this, Isaiah alone 
 of the prophets uses 'M 79’, for saith the Lord, 
 in the middle or end of a statement. This 
 is a usage peculiar to him, and it occurs in 
 both portions, viz. i. 11, 18, xxxiii. 10, xl. 1, 
 25, xli. 21 (twice), Ixvi. 9 (where we have 
 both forms, showing that they are synonymous 
 in meaning). The only other place in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures where this perhaps occurs 
 is Ps. xii. 6. Sis a proper future in Jer. 
 xin. 20; Hos, in-23- ‘Zechs xin 9. “OF 
 course the frequent use of 728" at the begin- 
 ning of a statement is quite different. 
 
 5. Ddiymayy anyn, from henceforth even for ever. This 
 phrase occurs once in the earlier chapters, ix. 
 7, and once in the later, lix. 21, and nowhere 
 else inthe O.T. (29 occurs twelve times in 
 the earlier, and thirty-four times in the later 
 chapters.) 
 
 6. ΝῊΡ) (NViphal), to be called. In earlier chapters, i. 
 26, iv. 1, xiv. 20, xxx. 4, xxxii. 5, xxxy. 8, 
 six times. In later, xliii. 7, xlviii. 1, 2, liv. 
 5, ἵν]. 7, lxi. 6, Ixii. 4, 12, xiii. 19, six times. 
 Seldom elsewhere, save in Genesis six times. 
 (The Pual, xlviii. 8, 12, lviii. 12, lxi. 3, lxii. 
 2, Ixv. 1.) 
 
 7. 727 MiB 3, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken 
 at, 1. 20, xl. 5, lviii. 14. Nowhere else in 
 Scripture. (78, mouth, eleven times in earlier, 
 thirteen in later.) 
 
10. 
 
 SEC. 4. TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE, 39 
 
 . vin, arm (of the Lord, or His arm), xl. 10, 11 
 
 (xliv. 12), xlviii. 14, li. 5, 11. 10, li. 1, lix. 
 16, lxii. 8, lxili: 5, 12. In earlier (ix. 20, 
 xvii. 5), xxx. 30, xxxill. 2. 
 
 . a 3 streams of waters, xxx. 25, xliv. 4. No- 
 
 where else. 
 
 Pere VIX, Mighty One of Israel, i. 24, xlix. 26, Ix. 
 16. Nowhere else. Mighty One of Jacob in 
 Gen. xlix. 24. 
 
 . DNYNY offspring, xxii. 24, xxxiv. 1, xl. 5, xliv. 
 
 3, xlviii. 19, lxi. 9, Ιχν. 23; and nowhere else, _ 
 save four times in Job (v. 25, xxi. 8, xxvii. 
 eA ore. 8): 
 
 . ΜῈ, stock, xi.1,xl. 24. Nowhere else, save Job xiv. 8. 
 . ΝΕ) 80, high and lifted up, ii. 18, vi. 1, vu. 15. 
 . nv, to fail, xix. 5, xli. 17. Nowhere else, save 
 
 Jer. li. 30. 
 
 . W3, to burn, kindle, i. 31, iii. 14, iv. 4, v. 5, vi. 
 
 15 se 1G) oe WY, τοῖχο 1} ex, 27.938) xxiv. 
 9, xl. 16, xlii. 25, xliii. 2, xliv. 15, L 11, lx. 1 
 (not unusual, especially in Deut. and Psalms). 
 
 . wh, vain, xxiv. 10, xxix. 21, xxxiv. 11, xl. 17, 23, 
 
 xli. 29, xliv. 9, xlv. 18, 19, xlix. 4, lix. 4, eleven 
 times; ten times elsewhere in Scripture. 
 
 . br mn, outcasts of Israel, xi. 12, lvi. 8 (Ps. 
 
 exlvii. 2 only), see xvi. ὃ, 4, xxvii. 13. 
 
 . bn, to travail, xiii. 8, xxili. 4, 5, xxvi. 17, 18, 
 
 xiv. 10; live Lp bev. :7, 8. 
 
 . DY, prison, xxiv. 22, xlii. 7. The word occurs 
 
 in this sense only elsewhere in Ps. ΟΣ]. 7. 
 
 . δ) Nw, to Lift up an ensign, v. 26, xi. 10, 12, xiii. 
 
 9, xviii. 3, xlix. 22, lxii. 10 (o>). 
 
 . 0 ΠῸΣ (and other similar verbs signify to stretch 
 
 out or.sway the hand), v. 25, ix. 11, 16, 20, 
 x. 4, xi. 8, 14, 15, xiv. 26, 27, xxxi. 3, xlix. 
 22, Ixv. 2. 
 
40 
 
 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 22. WP, to hearken, x. 30, xxi. 7, xxviii. mos oxy. A 
 
 xlii. 23, xlviii. 18, xlix. 1, li. 4. 
 
 23. The figure ἐπανάφορα, i.e. the repetition of words 
 
 at the beginning and end of sentences, i. G 
 your country is desolate ; your land, strangers 
 devour it in your presence, and it is desolate 
 as overthrown by strangers, iv. 8, ix. 5, xiv. 
 25, xix. 18, xxx. 7, 20, xxxv. 8, xliv. 5, xlvii. 
 1, AsO; Aw, Ux. 14, 8, χη 9. 
 
 D. Frequént mention of trees, and the use of words 
 connected with agriculture. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 nw, threshing instrument, xxviii. 27, xli. 15. (Only 
 in this sense in Amos i. 8. Usually fine gold.) 
 sy2, thorn or thicket, vii. 19 ; wpon all thorns, ly. 13, 
 instead of the thorn. Nowhere else. 
 "23, garden, i. 29, the gardens ye have planted. 
 i. 80, as a garden that hath no water. 
 Ixi. 11, as the garden causeth, ete. 
 Ixv. 3, sacrificeth in gardens. 
 Ixvi. 17, the gardens behind. 
 
 WW, root, v. 24, xi. 1, 10, xiv. 29, 30 (xxvii. 6), 
 
 XxXvil. 31, liii. 2 (xl. 24). 
 
 . ΒΒ, willows, xv. 7, the brook of the willows. 
 
 xliv. 4, willows by the water-courses. (In only 
 three other places.) 
 
 TS, oak, 11. 13, the oaks of Bashan. 
 
 vi. 13, tel tree and an oak. 
 xliv. 14, the cypress, "MN, and the oak. 
 
 . DS, cedar, ii. 18, ix. 10, xiv. 8, cedars of Lebanon. 
 
 xxxvil. 24, tall cedars. 
 xli. 19, plant in the wilderness the cedar. 
 xliv. 14, he heweth down cedars. 
 
 . wR, fir, xiv. 8, the sir trees rejoice at thee. 
 
 xxxvil. 24, the choice fir trees thereof. 
 xli, 19, L will set in the desert the fir tree. 
 
9. 
 
 SEC, 4.——TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. 41 
 
 lv. 13, shall come up the fir tree. 
 
 Ix. 18, the fir tree, the pine, and the box. 
 
 4, corn, xxxvi. 17, a land of corn and wine. 
 Ix. 8, 7] will no more give thy corn. 
 
 10. 8X4, grass, springing grass, xv. 6, the grass faileth. 
 
 ee, 
 
 14. 
 
 15 
 
 Xxxvil. 27, the green herb. 
 
 Ixvi. 14, like an herb. 
 
 V3", grass, xv. 6, the grass is withered, 3 (xix. 
 Gy 
 
 Xxxv. 7, grass with reeds and rushes. 
 
 XXxvil. 27, grass on the house-tops. 
 
 xl. 6, all flesh is grass. 
 
 xl. 7, the grass withereth, ¥2 (verse 24). 
 
 xl. 7, surely the people is grass. 
 
 xl. 8, the grass withereth, 3). 
 
 xliv. 4, they shall spring up as among the grass. 
 
 ΧΙ. 12, man shall be made as grass. 
 
 avy, herb, grass, xxxvii. 27, they were as the 
 grass of the field. 
 
 xlii. 15, dry up all their herbs. 
 
 Ms, flower, xxviii. 1, a fading flower. 
 
 xxvil. 4, a fading flower. 
 
 xl. 6, as the flower of the field. 
 
 xl. 7, the flower fadeth. 
 
 xl. 8, the flower fadeth. 
 
 nev, leaf, i. 30, an oak whose leaf fadeth. 
 
 xxxlv. 4, as the leaf falleth off from the vine. 
 
 Ixiv. 6, we all do fade as a leaf. 
 
 YY, tree, vil. 2, as the trees of the wood. 
 
 x. 15, the staff, as it were no wood. 
 
 x. 19, trees of his forest. 
 
 xxx. 33, fire and much wood. 
 
 xxxvi. 19, wood and stone. 
 
 xl. 20, chooseth a tree that will not rot. 
 
 xli. 19, the myrtle and the oil tree. 
 
 xliv. 13, the worker of trees, 
 
42 
 
 16. 
 
 17: 
 
 18. 
 
 19.. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 xliv. 14, trees of the forest. 
 
 xliv. 19, stock of a tree. 
 
 xliv. 23, O forest and every tree. 
 xlv. 20, wood of graven image. 
 
 lv. 12, trees of the wood. 
 
 Ivi. ὃ, 1 am a dry tree. 
 
 lvii. 5, under every green tree. 
 
 Ix. 17, for wood, brass. 
 
 Ixy. 22, days of a tree. 
 
 WW’, forest or wood. 
 
 vil. 2, trees of the wood are moved. 
 ix. 18, thickets of the forest. 
 
 x. 18, the glory of his forest. 
 
 x. 19, trees of his forest. 
 
 x. 34, thickets of his forest. 
 
 ΧΧΙ. 13, in the forest in Arabia. 
 xxi. 8, house of the forest. 
 
 xxix. 17, fruitful field as a forest. 
 xxx. 15, fruitful field for a forest. 
 xxx. 19, coming down on the forest. 
 xxxvil. 24, the forest of his Carmel. 
 xliv. 14, trees of the forest. 
 
 xliv. 23, O forest. 
 
 lvi. 9, beasts in the forest. 
 
 ms, dry ground, xxxv. 1, the solitary place, land 
 
 of drought. 
 xli. 18, the dry land springs of water. 
 lili. 2, root out of a dry ground. 
 
 ney, branch or bud, iv. 2, branch of the Lord. 
 
 Ixi. 11, bringeth forth her bud. 
 
 ree oil or ointment. 
 
 1. 6, mollified with ointment. 
 
 v. 1, fruitful hill (son of oil). 
 
 x. 27, the anointing. 
 
 xxv. 6, feast of fat things. 
 
 xxv. 6, of fat things full of marrow. 
 
20. 
 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 
 23. 
 
 SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. . 42 
 
 xxviil. 1, fat valleys. 
 
 xxviii. 4, the fat valley. 
 
 XXxix. 2, precious ointment. 
 
 xl. 19, the oz trees. 
 
 lvil. 9, with ointment. 
 
 Ixi. 3, oil of joy for a 
 
 HOI, rsh bulrush. 
 
 ix. 13, beaagh and rush. 
 
 mix: 15; branch or rush. 
 
 lvili. 5, bow down his head as a bulrush. 
 DN, pool. 
 
 xiv. 23, pools of water. 
 
 xix. 10, ponds for fish. 
 
 xxxy. 7, parched ground a pool. 
 
 xli. 18, wilderness a pool. 
 
 xlii. 15, dry up the pools. 
 
 vp, stubble. 
 
 v. 24, fire devoureth the stubble. 
 xxxill. 11, ye shall bring forth stubble. 
 x]. 24, take them away as stubble. 
 xli. 2, as driven stubble. 
 
 xlvii. 14, they shall be as stubble. 
 “BY, dust. 
 
 11. 10, hide thee in the dust. 
 
 ll. 19, caves of the dust. 
 
 xxv. 12, even to the dust. 
 
 xxvi. 5, even to the dust. 
 
 xxvi. 19, ye that dwell in the dust. 
 xxix. 4, low out of the dust (twice). 
 xxxiv. 7, their dust. 
 
 xxxlv. 9, the dust thereof. 
 
 xl. 12, comprehended the dust of the earth. 
 xli. 2, as the dust to his sword. 
 xlvii. 1, sit in the dust. 
 
 xlix. 23, lick up the dust. 
 
 li. 2, shake thyself from the dust. 
 
+4 
 
 24. 
 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 
 21. 
 
 28. 
 
 29. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—-LXVI. 
 
 Ixv. 25, dust shall be the serpent’s meat. 
 
 85, waters, i. 22, 30, 111; 1, viii. 6, 7, xi. 9, xii. 3, 
 
 xiv. 23, xv.. 6, 19; Gov sean oxi: 
 ὃ, ἃ, xxi 14, xxi ΧΗ} oe ey 10 
 KxVILL. 2, LY, xx 14 420725, eee τὺ 
 xxxill. 16, xxxv. 6, 7 (xxxvi. 12, 16), xxxvii. 
 25, xl. 12, xli. 17, 18 (twice), xliti. 2, 16, 20, 
 xliv. 3, 4, 12, xlviii. 1, 21 (twice), xlix. 10, 
 1. Ὁ; de. 10 Gives); ἀν τὰ BOs iva ae 
 
 em 9 Ὁ ΙΝ. 2: 
 1, snow. 
 Ἔ 18, they shall be white as snow. 
 ly. 10, the snow from heaven. 
 YM, to sow. 
 xvil. 10, set it with strange slips. 
 
 xxvill. 24, the ploughman plough all day to 
 
 Sow. 
 
 xxx. 23, thou shalt sow the ground. 
 Xxx. 20, sow beside all waters. 
 xxxvil. 30, the third year sow ye. 
 xl. 24, they shall not be sown. 
 
 lv. 10, seed to the sower. 
 
 33", to dig or hew. 
 
 v. 2, made (dug) a winepress in it. 
 x. 15, him that heweth. 
 
 XXli. 16, thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre. 
 
 hel; the rock whence ye were hewn. 
 
 li. 9, thou hast cut Rahab. 
 
 DPD, to gather stones. 
 
 v. 2, gathered out the stones thereof. 
 
 Ixii. 10, gather out the stones. 
 
 yo2, to plant. 
 
 v. 2, planted it with the choicest vine. 
 
 v. 7, his pleasant plant. 
 
 xvil. 10, shalt thou plant pleasant plants. 
 xvil. 11, make thy plant to grow. 
 
 ————- ~ 
 
30. 
 
 31. 
 
 32. 
 
 33. 
 
 94. 
 
 35. 
 
 SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. 45 
 
 xxxvil. 30, plant vineyards. 
 
 x]. 24, they shall not be planted. 
 
 xliv. 14, he planteth an ash. 
 
 li. 16, that I may plant the heavens. 
 
 Ix. 21, the branch of my planting. 
 
 Ixi. ὃ, the planting of the δορά, 
 
 wa, to dry up. 
 
 evar ΟΝ mi ip?) move) LIS x17, 824, xi, 
 15 ΠῚ xliv. 27. 
 
 223, to fade, 
 
 i 80, xvill. 45, xxiv. 4, xxviii. 1, 4, xxxiv. 4 
 Sih. oy, ἘΠΕῚ Oy Leo 
 
 wh, clay. 
 
 x. 6, mire of clay. 
 
 xxix. 16, potter’s clay. 
 
 xli. 25, on princes as on clay. 
 
 xlv. 9, shall the clay say. 
 
 Ixiv. 8, we are the clay. 
 
 iw, 02. 
 
 i. ὃ, the oz knoweth his owner, and the ass 
 his master’s crib. 
 
 vil. 25, sending forth of oxen. 
 
 xxxil. 20, the feet of the ox and the ass. 
 
 xvi. 3, he that killeth an oz. 
 
 mp, to bud or blossom. 
 
 v. 24, their blossom. 
 
 xvil. 11, thou shalt make to blossom. 
 
 xvii. 5, when the bud is perfect. 
 
 xxvii. 6, Israel shall blossom and bud. 
 
 xxxv. 1, shall blossom as the rose. 
 
 xxxv. 2, it shall blossom abundantly. 
 
 Ixvi. 14, your bones shall flourish (blossom). 
 
 p13 
 
 1. 8, a cottage in a vineyard. 
 
 111. 14, ye have eaten up the vineyard. 
 
 v. 1, touching his vineyard, verses 3, 4, 5, 7, 10. 
 
 b 
 
46 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 xvi. 10, in the vineyards. 
 
 xxvii. 2, a vineyard of red wine. 
 
 xxxvi. 17, bread and vineyards. 
 
 xxxvii. 30, plant vineyards. 
 
 Ixi. 5, your ploughmen and your vine-dressers. 
 Ixv. 21, they shall plant vineyards. 
 
 36. 39m, milk. 
 
 vii. 22, for the abundance of milk. 
 XXvill. 29, weaned from the milk. 
 
 lv. 1, buy wine and mulk. 
 
 lx. 16, suck the milk of the Gentiles. 
 
 37. D2, eggs. 
 
 x. 14, as one gathereth eggs. 
 lix. 5, cockatrice’ eggs (see x1. 8, xiv. 29), 
 he that eateth of their eggs. 
 
 38. PR, reed. 
 
 xix. 6, the reeds and flags shall wither. 
 xxxv. 7, grass with reeds. 
 
 xxxvl. 6, broken reed. 
 
 xl. 3, bruised reed. 
 
 xliil. 24, sweet cane. 
 
 xlvi. 6, in the balance. 
 
 Besides these, there are several words occurring 
 once or seldom only in either part, indicating the same 
 knowledge in the writer. Many of these terms are 
 ἄπαξ λεγόμενα in Scripture. 
 
 ns, ploughshare, 11. 4. 
 
 VSP, harvest, ix. 8, xvi. 9, xvii. 5,11, xvii. 4, 5, 
 xxi 3, παν. 
 
 WP, to reap, xvi. 5. 
 
 ἼΘΞ, sour grape, xviii. 5. 
 
 mpd, ditch, xxi. 11. 
 
 YP, fitches, xxvill. 25, 21. 
 
 van, to plough, xxviii. 24. 
 
 MesIN, rosé, ΧΧΧΥ. 1. 
 
 MONA, fig, Xxxiv. 4, xxxvi. 16, xxxvill. 21. 
 
SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. 47 | 
 
 inp, netile, xxxiv. 13. 
 
 nin, thistle, xxxiv. 13. 
 
 mew, shittah, xli. 19. 
 
 D1, myrtle, xli. 19, lv. 13. 
 wn, pine, xii. 19, lx. 138. 
 Ὄπ, box tree, xli. 19, lx. 18. 
 AWD, brier, lv. 18. 
 
 128, ploughman, 1x1. 5. 
 
 Let any one read i. 8, 30, v. 1-6, vi. 18, xvi. 10, 
 Xvil. 5, 6, xvill. 4, 5, xxviii. 25, xli. 19, xliv. 
 14, lv. 13, lx. 18, and this phenomenon will 
 further force itself upon him. Both portions 
 bear the same impress of one who knew trees 
 and agriculture well: in the earlier portion 
 the references are mainly literal ; in the later, 
 mainly figurative,—just what we should ex- 
 
 pect in his advanced experience and life, if 
 
 we suppose the prophet (as his writings oblige 
 
 us to suppose) to have been familiar with 
 
 such matters, either in theory or by practice, 
 | in his earlier life and in Palestine. 
 
 The result of the data thus presented to us, and the 
 linguistic phenomena which an examination and com- 
 parison of the two portions present, may be summed up 
 as follows :— 
 
 1. In examining in detail the testimony of the 
 language, we have twenty-eight words and expressions 
 _ represented as peculiar to the later chapters, and in- 
 dicating, according to some, a later and different 
 authorship, different from that of chapters i—xxxix. 
 Of these, only two are not found in the earlier portion ; 
 all the rest do occur in both portions, though not 
 always in the same form or conjugation; and there is 
 not sufficient warrant for assigning a signification to 
 any in the later portion different from the natural and 
 usual meaning in the earlier. The peculiarity assigned 
 
 
 
48 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 to any is simply a new meaning suggested by the 
 critics who would argue for the exile date. 
 
 2. As to Chaldaisms, we have examined twenty-two 
 examples suggested by the advocates of the late author- 
 ship. Of these not one can fairly be called a clear and 
 unmistakeable Chaldee form. They can hardly be 
 called later Hebraisms, because we find the very same 
 words and forms in the earlier books. Our chapters 
 are as free from Chaldaisms or late Hebraisms as any 
 other twenty-six consecutive chapters in the Bible. 
 
 3. We have named twenty-two words and phrases 
 common to and distinctive of both the earlier and the 
 later portions, many of them comparatively rare in other 
 parts of the Hebrew Scriptures,—expressions which we 
 may take to be peculiar to Isaiah the son of Amoz, 
 foremost among which stands the striking phrase, the 
 Holy One of Israel, a title which is a fit echo of the 
 vision of the prophet’s call. The natural inference is 
 (apart from external evidence, and even if the two 
 portions had come down to us in two separate parts), 
 that both came from one writer, or, at least, that the 
 later copied from and imitated the earlier. 
 
 4. We have traced a striking, undesigned coincidence 
 between the two portions in the acquaintance which 
 the writer of both had with trees and with farming 
 pursuits, the cultivation of the soil, peculiarities of 
 climate, tending of domestic animals, gardens, and 
 vineyards, as these were known and carried on in 
 Palestine. Many technical expressions and names 
 occur, some common to both portions, of which we 
 have given a list of thirty-eight, some peculiar to each, 
 but all affording subsidiary and cumulative proof of 
 identity of knowledge and circumstances in the writer 
 of both portions. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, to which we are led is, 
 that the linguistic evidence, viewed by itself, does not 
 
SEC. 4.—TESTIMONY OF THE LANGUAGE. 49 
 
 sanction, but rather forbids, the difference of date and 
 authorship claimed for the two portions. This differ- 
 ence, if real, must be a very marked one. In time, it 
 means a gap of more than a century and a half. In 
 country, it means a contrast between the climate, 
 habits, and associations of Palestine with its hills and 
 valleys, its vineyards and its woods, its rivers and trees, 
 and the vast dry monotonous plains of Babylon. In 
 circumstances, it means the contrast between those of 
 a great and well-known prophet in Jerusalem after the 
 captivity of the ten tribes and the laying waste by 
 Sennacherib of the cities of Judah, and a great un- 
 ' known and anonymous writer,—who, though so elo- 
 ᾿ quent and gifted, is not so much as named or hinted at 
 by subsequent writers,—living like Ezekiel at Chebar, 
 or like Daniel at Shushan, having spent between sixty 
 and seventy years under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar 
 and his successors, and surrounded by all the barbaric 
 pomp and splendour of Babylon. Surely all this must 
 have distinctly tinged the style, thought, language, and 
 figures of the book. Surely there would have been a 
 contrast as marked as that between the earlier portion 
 of Isaiah and Ezekiel or Ezra. Yet the fact is, as we 
 have seen, the language presents far more the features 
 of resemblance than of contrast. The contrast which 
 this later portion presents is one not with the earlier 
 portion, but with the exile writings; the locus standi of 
 the writer is more in harmony with the state of things 
 in Isaiah’s time than with that in Ezekiel or Daniel’s 
 days. Hach of the four topics of our inquiry—the 
 external testimony, the locus standi of the writer as 
 witnessed by the prophecy itself, the relation of the 
 prophecy to other O. T. books, and the testimony of 
 the language—leads us to the conclusion that chapters 
 xl.-Ixvi. are, as the Jews believed, and as they placed 
 
 them, part and parcel of the genuine prophecies of the 
 D 
 
 
 
50 AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, XL.—LXVI. 
 
 great Isaiah the son of Amoz. The history of the 
 adverse criticism is significant. It began with the 
 later portion. It spread afterwards to those parts of 
 the earlier where Babylon is named. The question of 
 genuineness has turned upon the question, Is anything 
 stated beyond Isaiah’s natural historical ken? It 
 seems to be taken for granted that miraculous pre- 
 diction has no place in prophetic inspiration, and that 
 if certain events are described and certain names 
 mentioned, e.g. Cyrus, this is clear proof that the 
 author lived contemporaneously with those persons 
 and events. Spinoza laid the foundation of this 
 naturalistic criticism. Suggesting the hypothesis that 
 the O. T. as we have it was practically the work of 
 Ezra (Tractat. Theol. x.), he represented the genuine 
 books of the prophets as mere fragments, assigning all 
 which implied miraculous prediction to later hands. 
 Koppe and Eichhorn followed in his train. As long 
 as Spinoza’s philosophy is adopted, predictive mention 
 in any book of persons and events, such as no human 
 sagacity unassisted by miracle could foretell, must be 
 assigned to a contemporary of the events described. 
 Nothing short of the denial of miraculous prophetic 
 revelation as a possibility and a fact can fully explain 
 or warrant the denial of the genuineness of a portion 
 of Scripture, reckoned as Isaiah’s by Jews and Chris- 
 tians, and testified to as Isaiah’s by that Messiah, the 
 glories of whose kingdom it describes, — testimony 
 echoed by the evangelists and by St. Paul, and received 
 by Christendom down to our own day,—testimony 
 which abundantly affirms that this writer is none other 
 than the great and famous prophet whose very name, 
 Salvation of God, was a presage of his theme, the gospel 
 prophet of the Old Testament, 
 
DISSERTATION II. 
 THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE "7 33) IN THE PROPHECY. 
 
 τ See the most important and difficult questions 
 connected with the later prophecies of Isaiah, is 
 that concerning the import of the high and august 
 title min) 52¥, servant of Jehovah, or simply "2%, my 
 servant, rendered in the LXX. sometimes by παῖς and 
 sometimes~ by δοῦλος, together with 029; "129, servants, 
 in the plural, my servants, of δοῦλοι pov. The word 
 occurs thirty times in these later chapters ; ten times 
 in the plural and twenty times in the singular, of 
 which latter it is six times rendered in ing LXX. by 
 δοῦλος and fourteen times by sais. 
 The question which we are now to consider is, To 
 whom does this title refer? Who does the prophet 
 mean when he uses the expression servant of Jehovah ? 
 
 Sec. 1. Testimonies to the Messianic Interpretation. 
 
 The oldest and almost universal opinion of Christian 
 interpreters down to the beginning of the present 
 century has been, that the servant of Jehovah is the 
 Messiah. This is the explanation which the Fathers 
 unanimously give, which some of the Jewish commen- 
 tators recognise, which most expositors since the 
 Reformation—Luther, Calvin, Vitringa, Clericus, Dathe, 
 Lowth, Micheelis, ἜΝ i and which, during 
 the fist half of the present century, Hen estenberg Kei’, 
 
T 
 
 2 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAT. 
 
 oO 
 
 Umbreit, Henderson, Alexander, and other German, 
 English, and American writers have maintained. 
 
 The Chaldee Targum on Isa. xlii. begins this 
 chapter thus: ‘‘ Behold my servant Messiah, in whom 
 my word is well pleased. I will put my Holy Spirit 
 upon Him, and He will reveal my judgment to the 
 Gentiles.” So Kimchi and Abarbanel. 
 
 Justin Martyr (c. Tryphon, sec. 123) says: “If you 
 have ears to hear, you will hearken to God, who speaks 
 to you by Isaiah concerning Christ, and calls Him by 
 a figure Jacob and Israel.” He then quotes Isa. xlii. 
 1-4, and adds: “ As all your race is called Israel and 
 Jacob from one, so we in Christ, who begat us, are, as 
 Jacob and Israel, children of God if we obey Christ.” 
 And in sec. 185: “ As Isaiah calls Christ Israel and 
 Jacob, so we, being born of Christ, are the true Israel 
 of God.” 
 
 Augustine, De Civitate Dei, xviii. 29, observes: “ In 
 this prophecy Isaiah speaks so plainly of Christ, that 
 he seems to perform the part of an evangelist rather 
 than of a prophet;” and, after quoting chapter liii., he 
 says: “ Hac de Christo.” | 
 
 Theodoret on Isa. lili. remarks: ‘‘ The prophet 
 represents to us in this passage the whole course of 
 Christ’s humiliation and death.” 
 
 Luther on Isa. 1111, says: “‘ There is not in all the 
 O. T. Scriptures a clearer text or prophecy, both of 
 the sufferings and the resurrection of Christ, than in 
 this chapter.” 
 
 Calvin says: “The prophet here suddenly passes 
 forward .to Christ, whom He ealls the servant of 
 Jehovah. That Christ is meant, the evangelist puts 
 beyond question (Matt. xii. 15-21).” “Paul,” says 
 Calvin, “accordingly says, Phil. ii. 6, He took upon Him 
 the form of a servant (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών). | 
 Zwingli on Isa. 1111. says: ‘That which now follows 
 
SEC. 2.—NON-MESSIANIC INTERPRETATIONS. 53 
 
 is so clear a testimony of Christ, that I do not know 
 whether anywhere in Scripture there could be found 
 anything more consistent, or anything could be more 
 distinctly said.” 
 
 This interpretation, which was regarded as indisput- 
 able by Fathers, by Reformers, by all Christian ex- 
 positors down to the beginning of the nineteenth 
 century, is now rejected by many learned Hebraists 
 and Biblical scholars, Jewish and Christian, of modern 
 times, the integrity of whose convictions we must 
 esteem as highly as their learning. Gesenius, Winer, 
 Rosenmiiller, Martini, de Wette, Paulus, Hitzig, Bleek, 
 Knobel, Ewald, Schenkel, Hupfeld, Davidson, Bunsen, 
 Kalisch, are foremost in the array of authorities against 
 the Messianic interpretation. 
 
 Sec. 2. Non-Messianic Interpretations. 
 
 The non-Messianic interpretations are divided by 
 Hengstenberg into two main classes,—namely, those 
 which suppose that a collective body is the subject of 
 the prophecy, and those which understand by the 
 servant of Jehovah some individual. 
 
 1. According to de Wette, Gesenius, Winer, Schenkel, 
 Hendewerk, the title Servant of Jehovah refers to the 
 prophets as the messengers of God to the people. “The 
 servant,” says Umbreit, ‘‘is the collective body of the 
 prophets, or of the prophetic order, which is here 
 plainly represented as the sacrificial victim taking 
 upon itself the sins of the people.” Even Hofmann in 
 part adopts this view. Schriftbeweis, 11. 1, p. 89: “‘ The 
 people, as a people, are called the servant of God; but 
 they do not fulfil their vocation, and it is therefore the 
 work of the prophets to restore the congregation. 
 Prophetism is represented not in its present condition 
 only, when it exists in a number of messengers and 
 
54 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 witnesses of Jehovah, but also in its final result, when 
 the servant of Jehovah unites the office of prophet and 
 mediator.” Hofmann thus includes Christ as the great 
 Prophet; but he endeavours to remove the vicarious 
 character of the servant's sufferings in his exposition 
 of Isa. liii. | 
 
 2. According to Doederlein, Schuster, Eichhorn, 
 Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Késter, the servant 
 of Jehovah denotes the Jewish people collectively ; and the 
 sufferings of the servant are the sufferings of the exiled 
 nation in Babylon. Many modern Jews adopt this 
 view, understanding the servant to be their own race, 
 but taking the sufferings to denote their present exile 
 and dispersion over the whole world. 
 
 3. According to Paulus, Thenius, Maurer, and 
 Knobel, the servant of Jehovah is the pious portion, the 
 better sort among the exiles, those who retained the 
 knowledge and fear of God, and who, as vicarious 
 sufferers, were undergoing the undeserved consequences 
 of the sins of their brethren. The heads of the tribes, 
 the priests and Levites, the prophets who led the 
 returning exiles in Ezra’s time, are included in this 
 God- fearing kernel. To them collectively the title 
 servant of Jehovah is to be applied. They, the true 
 worshippers, were exposed to mockery and scorn, to 
 persecution and abuse; and thus the punishments of 
 sin had to be endured chiefly by those who did not 
 deserve them. 
 
 4. The explanation of Eckermann, Bleek, Ewald, 
 and Dr. 8. Davidson is, that the title refers not to the 
 Jewish people collectively, nor to a pious section of 
 them, but to Israel according to tts true ideal,—the ideal 
 of the people,—“ idealized Israel according to its true 
 conception and eternal destiny ;-” just as we might 
 speak of the church, either in its actual state with all 
 its discords and imperfections, or in the abstract, as 
 
SEC, 3.-—-CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES, 55 
 
 the spotless bride of Christ. ‘‘ Idealized Israel, suffer- 
 ing for others to bring them-to repentance and faith 
 in Jehovah, is the seer’s high theme in chapter Nii.” 
 They are supposed to suffer vicariously for the heathen, 
 inasmuch as, through the centuries of suffering they 
 endured, universal blessings were obtained. 
 
 5. Another class of explanations makes the servant 
 of Jehovah to denote some one individual. And here 
 various names have been suggested: Kine Uzzian, by 
 Augusti; Hezextan, by Bahrdt and others; the 
 prophet Isarau himself, by Steudlin; and the prophet 
 JEREMIAH, by Bunsen. 
 
 See. 3. Classification of Passages. 
 
 Instead of entering upon a discussion of these 
 various explanations, we shall, following the inductive 
 method, enumerate and examine the passages in which 
 the designation occurs, and endeavour to classify them. 
 
 I. In the earlier portion, chapters i-xl., the word 
 occurs as follows :— 
 
 (1.) xiv. 2: ‘“ The house of Israel shall possess them 
 (i.e. the strangers) in the land of the Lord for servants 
 (Ὁ Ἴ12}) and handmaids,” 1.6. as bondmen. 
 
 (2.) xx. 3: “ My servant Isaiah.” 
 
 (3.) xxii. 20: “ My servant Eliakim.” 
 
 (4.) xxiv. 2: “As with the people, so with the priest ; 
 as with the SERVANT (7293), so with his master.” 
 
 (5.) xxxvi. 9 (in the Rabshakeh’s address) : “716 
 least of my master’s SERVANTS.” 
 
 (6.) xxxvi. 11: “ Speak to thy seRvANTS in the Syrian 
 language.” 
 
 (7.) xxxvii. 5: “So the servants of King Hezekiah 
 came to Isaiah.” 
 
 (8.) xxxvii. 24: “ By thy servants hast thou re- 
 proached the Lord.” 
 
56 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 (9.) xxxvii. 85: “I will defend this city for my 
 serVANT David's sake.” 
 
 The meaning and reference of the word in all these 
 nine places of the earlier chapters is plain. [Ὁ is used 
 in its ordinary sense of the servants of Hezekiah and 
 of the king of Assyria; Isaiah, and David, and Ehiakim 
 are casually, and with no special signification beyond 
 that in which the word is elsewhere frequently used, 
 called the servants of God. 
 
 II. In the later portion the word. occurs ten times in 
 the plural :— 
 
 (1.) liv. 17: “ This is the heritage of THE SERVANTS 
 or THE Lorp; and their righteousness is of me, saith the 
 Lorp.” 
 
 (2.) ἵν]. 6: “Also the sons of the stranger that join 
 themselves to the Lorn, to serve Him, to be His servants.” 
 
 (3.) Ixiii. 17: “ Return for THy SERVANTS’ sake, the 
 tribes of thine inheritance.” 
 
 (4.) Ιχν. 8: “So will. I do for My servants’ sakes, 
 that I may not destroy them.” 
 
 (5.) Ixv. 9: “Mine elect shall inherit it, and my 
 SERVANTS shall dwell there.” 
 
 (6.) Ixv. 18, 14: “ Behold, my servants shall eat, but 
 ye (that τς the Lorp) shall be hungry: behold, my 
 servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my 
 SERVANTS shall rejoice, but 1 ye shall be ashamed : behold, 
 MY SERVANTS shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall ery 
 for sorrow of heart.” 
 
 (7.) Ixv. 15: “The Lorn God shall slay. thee, and 
 shall call His servants by another name.” 
 
 (8.) Ixvi. 14: “ The hand of the Lorn shall be ἌΡΗΝ 
 towards His sErvANtSs, and His indignation toward His 
 enemies.” 
 
 A careful examination of these passages—the only 
 places in which the word occurs after chapter liii., and 
 the only places in which it occurs in the plural 
 
SEC. 3.—-CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES. 57 
 throughout this later portion from chapter xl. onwards 
 —leads to the conclusion that by the phrase my 
 servants (in the plural) is meant, not any one particular 
 person or number of persons, but a class of persons, a 
 class of characters, all who piously fear the Lorp and 
 walk in His ways, whether they belong to the chosen 
 people or be strangers. The word thus used has an 
 ethical signification, and is not a technical designation. 
 The change from the singular to the plural after 
 chapter liii. is significant; before that chapter the 
 plural never occurs in our section (xl.—Ixvi.), after that 
 chapter the singular never occurs. Knobel, who with 
 many others explains the title as throughout referring 
 to a God-fearing remnant, suggests the following 
 reason for the change of number. ‘The author 
 speaks,” he says, “οἵ only one servant from chapter xl. 
 to liii., but speaks: of servants from chapter liv. to lxvi. 
 He hoped at first that the worshippers of Jehovah 
 would all join in the restoration movement as one 
 man, and he therefore addresses them, as one great 
 community, in the singular. But in course of time it 
 appeared that only a few of them were inclined to 
 establish the theocracy in the Holy Land. The 
 majority were content to remain in the land of exile ; 
 he therefore begins to use the plural number, because 
 those who would return were only a few, and not the 
 whole collectively.” It is a curious argument that a 
 decrease of numbers should account for a change from 
 the singular to the plural; and it is clear from the 
 chapters preceding chapter liii., upon Knobel’s own 
 interpretation, that the God- fearing Israelites were 
 never more than a section of the exiles; so that the 
 reason he gives for the use of the plural holds good 
 throughout, and should have led to the use of the 
 plural in every part of the prophecy. 
 
 The more natural explanation of this strikingly 
 
58 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 marked change of number is, that the prophet, having 
 applied the title in chapter 111. to an individual person 
 in whom his ideal should find its full realization, 
 thenceforward, when speaking of the class, adopts the 
 plural. Dr. Alexander says: “It may no doubt be said 
 in explanation, that the prophet has completed his 
 description of the individual servant, but has still much 
 to say of his followers or servants. But a full explana- 
 tion is afforded only by the hypothesis that the servant 
 of Jehovah is a name applied both to the Body and 
 the Head; and as soon as he has reached the final 
 exaltation of Messiah, and’ withdrawn Him from our 
 view, the prophet thenceforth ceases to personify His 
 members, and applies to them the ordinary plural 
 designation of Jehovah's servants.” 
 
 III. Giving our attention now to the use of the term 
 in the singular number in these later chapters, we find 
 that it occurs twenty times, and this in chapters xl.- 
 1111. 
 
 I classify these twenty texts as follows :— 
 
 A. Texts in which the word ‘is obviously used as 
 synonymous with Jacob and Israel, to denote the chosen 
 people. 
 
 ΧΙ. 8,9: ‘‘ But thou, Israel, art My SERVANT, Jacob 
 whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. 
 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and 
 called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto 
 thee, Thou art My SERVANT; I have chosen thee, and 
 not cast thee away. Fear thou not; for I am with thee: 
 be not afraid; for Iam thy God: I will strengthen thee ; 
 yea, Iwill help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right 
 hand of my righteousness.” 
 
 Here Jacob and Israel, the seed of Abraham (whom 
 God called “my servant Abraham,” Gen. xxvi. 24), are 
 expressly designated my servant. 
 
 xliv. 1, 2: “* Yet now hear, O Jacob, MY SERVANT ; and 
 
SEC. 3.—CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES, 59 
 
 Tsrael, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made 
 thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee ; 
 Fear not, O Jacob, My SERVANT; and thou, Jeshurun, 
 whom I have chosen.” 
 
 Here again “Jacob,” “ Israel, whom I have chosen,” 
 Jeshurun (probably the just or blessed, and a play upon 
 the word Israel), whom I hawe ΠΕ are expressly 
 called my servant. 
 
 xliv. 21: “‘ Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for 
 thou art My SERVANT: I have formed thee ; thou art My 
 seRVANT: O Israel, thou shalt not be forg gotten Op mene ok 
 have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as 
 a cloud, thy ae Return unto me ; for 1 have redeemed thee,” 
 
 xlv. 4: “ For my servant Jacol’s sake, and Israel 
 mine elect, I have even called thee (Cyrus) by thy name.” 
 
 xlviii. 20: “Go ye forth from Babylon, flee ye from 
 the Chaldeans; say ye, The Lord hath redeemed His 
 SERVANT Jacob.” 
 
 xlix. 3: “ Thou art My sERVANT, O Israel, in whom 
 7 will be glorified.” 
 
 In all these passages, in which we find the words my 
 servant nine times, Jacob and Israel, the chosen people 
 collectively, are expressly named as the servant meant. 
 
 ΜΒ. Texts in which the word is used to designate 
 the prophet or prophets. 
 
 xlii. 19: ‘ Who is blind, but My SERVANT? or deaf, as 
 my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that ts perfect, 
 and blind as the LORD’s SERVANT (ΠῚ ΠῚ Ἴ2}3) 2” 
 
 xliii. 10: “ Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lorp, and 
 MY SERVANT whom I have chosen.” 
 
 xliv. 26: “‘ God confirmeth the word of His SERVANT, 
 and performeth the counsel of His messengers.” 
 
 1.10: “ Who ts among you that feareth the Lorn, that 
 obeyeth the voice of His SERVANT?” 
 
 In these passages the word is five times used as 
 parallel with “ messenger,” “messengers,” “ witnesses,” 
 
60 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 whose voice they that fear the Lorp obey, and therefore 
 distinct from the God-fearing people. As messenger 
 was an appropriate designation of prophets (see 2 
 Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16; Haggai i. 13), the prophet him- 
 self and his fellow-labourers among the people seem 
 here to be meant. 
 
 But, C, there still remain three passages in which 
 cither of the references named—that to the chosen 
 people, or that to the prophet or prophets—is inappro- 
 priate, or in an increasing degree inadequate and 
 inexhaustive; in which we cannot understand the 
 prophet himself, or ideal Israel, or Israel collectively, 
 as the sole reference. 
 
 xlii. 1-5 : “‘ Behold my servant, whom I uphold ; mine 
 elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit 
 upon Him; He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 
 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard 
 in the street. A bruised reed shall He not break, and the 
 smoking flax shall He not quench: He shall bring forth judg- 
 ment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till 
 He have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait 
 for His law.” 
 
 Our authorized version is, upon the whole, as correct 
 as it is beautiful. The behold answers to the behold of 
 xli. 29, where the vanity of idolaters and their idols 
 is apostrophized. Here the Servant of Jehovah is 
 presented with a marked individuality of character 
 and office. In contrast with the boasting and noise 
 of worldly pomp (as with the Rabshakeh of Sen- 
 nacherib), the Servant’s bearing is gentle, quiet, and 
 humble : “ He shall not cry, nor lift up (i.e. his voice), nor 
 cause His voice to be heard in the streets.” Unassuming 
 and quiet in Himself, He is tender in His dealings with 
 the weak (verse 3). He will vindicate right according 
 to truth (Πρ). Hitzig, Knobel, Delitzsch prefer this 
 rendering, appealing to this force of δ in xi. 3, “He shall 
 
SEC. 3.—CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES, 63 
 
 not judge after es according to) the hearing of theant of | 
 
 ete., and xxxii. 1, “A king shall reign in righteousrirael. 
 (ph), Verse 4 refers back to the epithets of verstael 
 He shall not fail, like the failing flax (Ana, failing ¢0 
 _ glimmering), nor be bruised, like the bruised reed (9), 
 till—not denoting a goal of time when the fainting and 
 failing shall take place in Him, but a goal of attain- 
 ment, to the end that, till this be attained—till He 
 able ‘right on earth, The next clause is indepen’ 
 
 dent—/far lands shall wait for His law. 
 
 Now there are in this passage, on the one hand too 
 marked a personality of character, and on the other 
 too wide a range of influence, to warrant its exhaustive 
 application to the Jewish nation collectively, or to a 
 plous remnant, or to an ideal Israel. The Chaldee 
 paraphrast understands here the Messiah; and that 
 this was the common interpretation in the time of 
 Christ, seems to be indicated in the reference to this 
 passage in the words of Simeon, Luke 11. 32: “ A light 
 to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of my people 
 Israel.” In one sense, indeed, we may say of Israel as 
 a nation, that through the Messiah they are for salvation 
 to the ends of the earth. But how could we explain of 
 them the words, “He shall not strive nor cry, nor cause 
 His voice to be heard in the streets”? What follows, 
 moreover, indicates that some one distinct from the 
 chosen people is meant; for in verse 6 we read, in 
 Jehovah’s address to Him: “TI will give Thee for a cove- 
 nant of the people (i.e. the Jewish nation), and for a light 
 of the Gentiles.” The whole passage is quoted, as appli- 
 eable to and fulfilled in Jesus, in Matt. xu. 17-21. 
 
 xlix. 5-7: ‘‘ And now, saith the Loxp that formed me 
 from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob again 
 to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him (the Keri 
 is b instead of x5), I shall also be glorious in the eyes of 
 the Lorp, and my God shall be my strength. And He 
 
60 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 whose/t is a light thing that thou shouldest be ΜῪ SERVANT, 
 distiise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved 
 waTsrael; I will also gwe thee for a light to the Gentiles, 
 Ciat thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” 
 
 The verses preceding these (verses 1-4) are also — 
 taken by Delitzsch and others as the language of the 
 servant in his personal character and mission. Thus 
 taken, we find him in verse 3 applying to himself 
 personally the words of Jehovah to Israel: “He said 
 unto me, Thou art My sERVANT, O Israel, in whom I will 
 be glorified.”* This whole passage is very striking and 
 significant. It indicates the narrowing of the more 
 general application of the title my servant from Israe}, 
 the chosen people, to one individual. That one indi- 
 - vidual person is here meant, we are compelled to infer, 
 partly on account of the language of verse 1, “from 
 the womb, from the bowels of my mother,” just as we have 
 it again in verse 5. This reference to his mother with 
 the 58 expressed is emphatic, and is in keeping with 
 Gen. 111. 15, “the seed of the woman,” with the mention 
 of the Virgin in Isa. vii. 14, with Ps. xxii. 10, 11, 
 and Micah v. 2; it denotes the human personality of 
 the servant. But chiefly must we thus understand it 
 here on account of the express distinction which is 
 made between the servant and Jacob or Israel in 
 verse 5. The work of the servant is “to bring again 
 Jacob and to gather Israel, to raise up the tribes of Judah, 
 and to restore the preserved of Israel.” This language we 
 take as referring to the twelve tribes—Judah and 
 Israel collectively, the remnant of them, the preserved 
 of them. Now, the servant here is manifestly distinct 
 
 1 The reading here is much disputed. Michelis and Gesenius suppose 
 that the term Syn was introduced by some copyist, just as ᾿Ισραήλ was 
 by the L.XX. in chapter xlii. 1. The word is wanting in Kennicott’s Cod. - 
 
 96. Grotius, Dathe, followed by Henderson, taking Sy’x in the sense of in 
 order that, render the clause: ‘* That in thee, O Israel, I may be glorified.” 
 
SEC. 3— CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES. 63 
 
 from the tribe of Judah, distinct from the remnant of | 
 Israel ; he is to bring again Jacob, and to gather Israel. 
 How could it in any intelligible sense be said, “Israel 
 is to gather Israel,” or “the remnant of Israel is to 
 restore the remnant of Israel,” or “ideal Israel—Israel 
 according to its ideal—is to bring again Jacob and to 
 gather Israel”? Nothing can be plainer from the 
 prophet’s language than that the servant is distinct in his 
 mind from the people, and that he is referring to some 
 _ one servant who is to bring again Jacob and to gather 
 Israel. 
 
 Thus we perceive here the gradual narrowing and 
 converging of the lines of prophecy to a definite point 
 —to the apex of the pyramid, to the focus of heavenly 
 light and glory full of grace and truth, the Redeemer 
 of Israel, the Messiah Himself. At verse 3 the servant 
 takes to himself personally the words of God to Israel: 
 “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be 
 glorified.” The servant then continues describing his 
 own experience: “ Then I said, I have laboured in vain, 
 and have spent my strength for nought and in vain; yet 
 surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with 
 my God.” What follows contains a rising of the 
 thought higher still. Theré is no one in O. T. history, 
 from Isaiah’s time downwards, in whom the words 
 gained anything approaching to an adequate fulfil- 
 ment. . No life and life’s work save that of Jesus of 
 Nazareth in any degree attained the august height and 
 depth of these words. The application of them by 
 Paul and Barnabas in their address at Antioch in 
 Pisidia, Acts xiii. 47, contains the fullest confirmation 
 of what the language itself obliges us to suppose: “1 
 was necessary that the word of God should first have been 
 spoken unto you ; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge 
 yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the 
 Gentiles: for so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I 
 
64 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, and that thou 
 shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” In 
 Him who took upon Himself the form of a servant, 
 and became obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the cross, in Him and in His gospel alone the prophet’s 
 words attain their accomplishment. Simeon accord- 
 ingly, Luke ii. 30, 31, designates the infant Jesus as 
 the ‘‘cwripuov of God which He has prepared before the 
 face of all people,” words which echo the prophecy: 
 “that thou mayest be my salvation (MY) unto the end of 
 the earth.” Yn 2 Cor. vi. 1, 2 the eighth verse is quoted, 
 and referred to the Messianic time: ‘‘ We then, as 
 workers together with Christ, beseech you also that ye recewe 
 not the grace of God in vain. For He saith, I have heard 
 thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I 
 succoured thee.” 
 
 Before passing from this passage, it is noteworthy 
 that it stands at the head of the second section of these 
 later prophecies. Section I. terminates with chapter 
 xlviii. 22. In chapter xlix. we enter upon the second 
 great division (as marked in xl. 2, her iniquity is par- 
 doned), which represents the servant of Jehovah in the 
 fulness of his work as a vicarious sufferer, a propitia- . 
 tory sacrifice for the sins of the people. There is an 
 appropriate majesty in the august language with 
 which the servant here begins, ‘‘ Zzsten, ye far lands, 
 unto me, and attend, ye distant people.” 
 
 Sec. 4. Chapter 111. 13-lii. 12. 
 
 The third passage, which has a distinctively personal 
 and individual reference, is lii. 13—lii. 12. 
 
 Our English version of this famous passage is in the 
 main as correct as it is beautiful. Compared with any 
 newly attempted and competing translations, it far 
 transcends them in sublime simplicity and in pathos. 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP. LII. 13—LIII. 19. 65 
 
 Its words and phrases have been incorporated into the 
 common prayers and loftiest songs of every section of 
 the Christian church, and have inspired the genius of 
 the most gifted musical composers, giving sacredness 
 and sublimity to their compositions, which in turn 
 have helped to display now the moving pathos, and 
 anon the majestic glory of the words. Where is the 
 penitent who has not adopted as his own the confes- 
 sion: “ All we, like sheep, have gone astray”? Where is 
 the believer whose heart has not melted in sorrow at 
 the plaintive words: “He was despised and rejected of 
 men; &@ man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief”? 
 Verily it seems a desecration to enervate this passage, 
 the words of which in all Christian associations cluster 
 round the cross and find their only adequate fulfil- 
 ment there, and to degrade it into a description of the ᾿ 
 trials of a weeping Jeremiah or a pious remnant 
 among the exiles. Christendom instinctively shrinks 
 from such a narrowing and severing of it from the 
 centre and source of all human comfort and hope, from 
 such a transformation of a living fountain, ever fresh 
 and free, into a stagnant pool grown over with the reeds 
 and rushes of centuries. Entering devoutly upon the 
 consideration of it, we seem to hear a voice—the voice 
 of the Christian experience of eighteen centuriés— 
 echoing from innumerable scenes of penitence, of 
 sorrow, and of death: “ Lake thy shoes from off thy feet, 
 for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” Here 
 we seem to enter the holy of holies of Old Testament 
 prophecy—that sacred chamber wherein are pictured 
 and foretold the sufferings of Christ and the glory which 
 should follow. 
 
 This witness of Christendom, the witness of a thou- 
 sand penitents in every age, of “ten thousand times, 
 ten thousand and thousands of thousands,” whose 
 
 voices echo in long and ceaseless sound like the waves 
 E 
 
66 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 and ripples of the sea as they break upon the shore, 
 
 testifying that herein they have found the sure basis 
 and the full expression of their common faith and hope, 
 
 —is in itself a sort of evidence and argument for the 
 Messianic interpretation. For if the language of the 
 prophet has really nothing to do with our Saviour and 
 Ilis sufferings beyond a figurative adaptation of it 
 devised by human fancy, it would be impossible to 
 account for such a phenomenon in the universality 
 and the depth of it. Can it be that souls in every age, 
 renewed and inspired by the Spirit of God, have, in. 
 regarding this passage as a prophecy of the Redeemer's 
 sufferings, and a description of the atoning efficacy of 
 His work, been believing a lie—the victims of a pious 
 delusion? Is it conceivable, that He who is the 
 fountain and source of all knowledge and holiness in 
 man should thus suffer all Christendonr to be misled and 
 hoodwinked by a false interpretation, and this upon a 
 subject which involves the central doctrines of Chris- 
 tian faith? It is not; it cannot beso. MReverential 
 feeling, by si doataines the most learned and most 
 searching criticism, obtains the highest and most in- 
 telligent confirmation of the interpretation which it. 
 instinctively loves, and on which ‘it feeds. The more 
 accurately and closely the passage is studied, the 
 clearer does its Messianic import appear. 
 
 The connection of the passage is in perfect keeping 
 with the Messianic interpretation. At verse 7 we have 
 a description of the messengers upon the mountains 
 bringing glad tidings and publishing peace. No doubt 
 there is a primar y reference to the return from cap- 
 tivity; this is clearly foretold. But there is a further 
 and a fuller meaning. The very words echo the gospel. 
 The Hebrew 82, the Piel of 1&3, to be joyful, is the dis- 
 tinctive word for glad tidings, tidings usually in a good 
 sense (see 2 Sam. xviii. 25. There is good tidings [LXX. 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP. LIL 13—LIII. 19. 67 
 
 εὐαγγέλια] in his mouth; verse 27: He bringeth good tidings ; 
 2 Kings vii. 9: A day of good tidings), and is applied to 
 the publishers of the word of the Lord, Ps. Ixviii. 12. 
 We have it in chapter xl. 9, xli. 27, lxi.1. The Piel 
 participle “82, denoting the publisher of the glad 
 tidings, occurs twice, and distinguishes -him from the 
 Des, watchers, i.e. prophets. The whole passage is 
 quoted by St. Paul (Rom. x. 15) as descriptive of 
 gospel blessings and gospel times. It is followed by 
 the declaration: “ The Lord hath made bare His holy arm 
 (see Ps. xeviii. 1, 2; Luke iii. 6) im the sight of all the 
 nations ; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation 
 of our God.” This language never found its fulfilment 
 in any adequate sense until the triumphs of the gospel 
 were accomplished. It is clear (cf. also Rom. xy. 21; 
 Gal. iv. 27) that, while in the eontext there is a manifest 
 reference to the return of the exiles to their own land, 
 this return and the events which followed it can in 
 no sense be regarded as an adequate or exhaustive 
 fulfilment of the glorious hopes and universal blessings 
 foretold. 
 
 And in like manner with the fifty-fourth and fifty- 
 fifth chapters which follow ; we find in them expecta- 
 tions and prophecies which have found no realization 
 in Jewish history, which are reflected in their fulness 
 . nowhere but in the blessings and triumphs of the 
 gospel. Concerning Jerusalem in chapter liy., language 
 is used which was never fulfilled in her subsequent 
 history: “ Thou shalt break forth on the right hand and 
 on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles. As I 
 hawe sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over 
 the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with 
 thee, nor rebuke thee.” We have throughout language 
 which is far too wide, too lofty, for the history of the 
 Jews after the return,—language which is appropriate 
 only when applied to the spread of Christianity and 
 
68 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 the growth, of the church of the servants of the Lord Ὁ 
 throughout the world. How inadequate, in like manner, 
 is the explanation of chapter lv., which the non- 
 Messianic interpretation of chapter 111]. obliges: “ Ho, 
 every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters . . . come, 
 buy wine and milk without money, and without price.” 
 ‘‘Here are described,” says Knobel, “the rich material 
 blessings that awaited the exiles on their return.” 
 And thus throughout the chapter the prophet’s glorious 
 language has to be narrowed and degraded to suit the 
 meagre and material prospects and facts of Jewish 
 history in Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s days. No interpre- 
 tation of this chapter at all comes up to its tone and 
 befits its language, save that which recognises here the 
 invitations, the blessings, the triumphs of the gospel 
 of Christ. That the Servant, therefore, described in 
 chapter 111. should be directly and exclusively the 
 Saviour of the world, is only in keeping with the 
 context of the prophecy, both that preceding and that 
 following. 
 
 The word 72¥ occurs twice only in the passage; in 
 the beginning, lii. 13: ‘‘ Behold my Servant,” and near 
 the close, lili. 11: “‘ My righteous Servant ;” but the recur- 
 rence of the personal pronoun throughout, the emphatic 
 and repeated sn, points obviously to Him, as distinct 
 from the 272%, we. There is a contrast very marked - 
 throughout between the Servant on the one hand, and 
 the people collectively on the other. If our English 
 version is deficient in any way, it is in not giving 
 sufficient emphasis to these pronouns, sm, αὔτος, He 
 Himself, on the one hand; and 2028, we on our part, on 
 the other. That emphatic pronoun occurs five times in 
 the passage, which in other places our translators have 
 rendered by the words: He Himself, e.g. Ps. 1. 6: “ God is 
 Judge Himself ;” Ps. xxxvii. 5: “ The Prophet Himself ;” 
 Isa. vii. 14: * Jehovah Himself shall give you a sign.” 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP. LIL. 13—LIII. 12. » 69 
 
 Another point to be noted is the substitutionary 
 nature of the sufferings of this Servant. He is described 
 as sinless, perfectly spotless; which, according to the 
 whole tenor of O. T. teaching, and of this prophecy in 
 particular, cannot be said of any of the children of 
 men. Yet He suffers, and His sufferings are sufferings 
 ending in death. “ re 7s wounded for our transgressions, 
 and ΠΣ for our iniquities ; His soul is made an offering 
 Jor sin; He is led to the slaughter.” His death, His 
 burial, are named, and these are followed by His life 
 from the dead, and His exaltation. The language 
 throughout describes Him as suffering and dying, 
 becoming obedient unto death; not for any sins of His 
 own, but for our sins; “upon Him was laid the iniquity | 
 of us all.” Such language as this is utterly exaggerated | 
 and inappropriate when understood of any, even the) 
 most excellent of men—Isaiah, Jeremiah, the pious | 
 remnant. For, as every book in the O. T. teaches, 
 either expressly or by implication, the holiest and most 
 excellent of men are the most humble and penitent on 
 account of the sin which they feel attaches to them ; 
 and to hold oneself sinless, is to be guilty of self- 
 righteousness and pride. All holiness in man arises 
 from the elective and sanctifying grace and mercy of 
 God; to be holy is, in O. T. usage, ‘‘ to be set apart and 
 dedicated to God ;” it does not in the case of fallen man 
 signify sinlessness. The language of our chapter ‘so 
 fully describes the Servant as sinless, and a sufferer for 
 the iniquity of those designated us atu, that its only 
 adequate fulfilment is to be found in the sufferings and 
 death of the Gop-man. We may apply to it the happy 
 illustration of Archbishop Whately, and say that it is 
 like “a complicated lock with many wards, which but 
 
 If we attempt to apply in detail any other proposed 
 interpretation, its weakness and inappropriateness wil] 
 
70 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 immediately be seen. Take, for example, that which 
 supposes the suffering Servant to be the pious 1 remnant 
 of the chosen people. ‘In these verses,” says Knobel, 
 “the prophet describes the sufferings and hopes of the 
 true Israel. They grew up before the Lord as a sapling 
 and as a root out of a dry ground (the image of a tree 
 being often adopted regarding Israel, Isa. v. 24; Hosea 
 ix. 16, xiv. 6). During the exile the majority of the 
 people went astray like lost sheep after the idols of the 
 heathen, every one his own way; they conformed to 
 the habits and vices of those among whom they lived, 
 and they were therefore allowed to live in compara- 
 tively quiet and easy circumstances.” With all respect — 
 for Knobel’s learning and acuteness, we ask, How does 
 he know all this? His only authority is his own 
 interpretation of these chapters. “The true worship- 
 pers of Jehovah, on the contrary,” he proceeds, “ faith- 
 ful to their religion in the midst of wickedness, were 
 persecuted and poor, despised and rejected, scorned 
 and neglected even by their own ungodly kinsmen, 
 who hid their faces from them in contempt. Upon 
 them, therefore, fell the heaviest sufferings—sufferings 
 wien God had appointed in punishment for the past 
 rebellions and sins of Israel. These sufferings fell not 
 upon the ungodly, but upon the pious exiles, who, 
 holding stedfastly to their nationality, and το τς Ἢ 
 J ehovah against the idols, exposed themselves to scorn 
 and. persecution. Thus punishment befell those who 
 did not merit it rather than those who did; the pious 
 suffered vicariously for the whole people. But a time 
 was coming after all this sorrow and persecution, a 
 time of deliverance and triumph, when the pious 
 remnant should prolong their days and be satisfied ; 
 
 when, that is, they should be restored’ to their one 
 country Sata: and be appointed a portion with the 
 great, and divide the spoil with the strong.” 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP, LII. 13—LIII. 12. Τὴ 
 
 I give this passage from Knobel’s Conunentary in loc. 
 in full, because it is the most plausible and the fullest 
 attempt that I have seen to explain in detail the 
 several parts of our chapter as applicable to the pious 
 remnant. Yet does it not strike any fair reader, that 
 if this be the prophet’s meaning, he expresses himself 
 with strange indistinctness and exaggeration? The 
 most pious of the exiles could not be described as 
 spotless and pure by a prophet who, in the presence of 
 Jehovah, exclaimed: “J am a man of unclean lips, and | 
 dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips ;” who else- | 
 where says: ‘‘ Our righteousnesses are filthy rags ;” 
 
 and Israel thus: “J, even I, am He that blotteth out thy 
 transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember 
 
 thy sins. Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers | 
 have transgressed against me” (xliii. 25-27). “Cry | 
 aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice lke a trumpet, and show — 
 
 my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their 
 sins. Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways ; 
 they take delight in approaching to God” (νι. 1, 2). 
 “ Our transgressions are multiplied before Thee, and our 
 sins testify against us : for our transgressions are with us ; 
 and as for our iniquities, we know them” (lix. 12; cf. 16, 
 17s seer alos Ly lbev. ἘΠ δ 7.) This 1g the 
 habitual tone of humility and penitence by which the 
 prophet himself and the best among the people are 
 distinguished. Instead of separating himself and the 
 pious from the sinful, and marking them out with 
 himself as sufferers for the sins of others, the’ prophet 
 always adopts the language of penitence and con- 
 fession, acknowledging his own and his brethren’s 
 desert of punishment. 
 
 ' The pronouns, moreover, in the fifty-third chapter 
 
 \ 
 
 3 
 
 who | 
 asks: “‘ Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the — 
 robbers? did not the Lorp, He against whom we have ὦ 
 sinned ?” and who represents God as addressing Jacob — 
 
72 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 itself belie this interpretation. Not only is the suffering 
 Servant named in the singular number, but the singular 
 is repeatedly and emphatically used regarding Him. 
 In contrast with the Servant stands the prophet and 
 his fellow-countrymen (including the best), who are 
 clearly intended by the we. When we shall see: Hm, | 
 there is no beauty that wE should desire H1w. We hid 
 our faces from Him. Surely He hath borne ovr griefs. | 
 By the we he manifestly means himself and his fellow- 
 countrymen. ‘The exclusion of a supposed pious rem- 
 nant is, moreover, forbidden by the use of the word all. 
 ‘Atti ΜῈ; like sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned 
 EVERY ONE ἴο his own way; and the Lorp hath laid on 
 Him the iniquity of us aww.” Those who were the most 
 devout and holy would feel most deeply their un- 
 worthiness, and would be the foremost to adopt as 
 their own these confessions of sin. The High and Holy 
 One looks not upon those who boast of themselves that 
 they are righteous, who declare that they are the 
 innocent sufferers for the sins of other men, but upon 
 the contrite and humble. A sense of unworthiness 
 and ill desert is, according to the teaching of the O. T. 
 generally, and of this prophecy in particular, the sign 
 of real excellence of character. What an unholy pride 
 and self-complacency would the prophet (who, accord- 
 ing to the champions of this interpretation, was himself 
 among the exiles) have been guilty of, if by the we he 
 meant the idolatrous and depraved portion, and by the 
 him he meant himself and a pious remnant, holy, harm- 
 less, undefiled, suffering not for their own, but for other 
 people’s sins. The prophet, I repeat, and those classing 
 themselves with him, would have been guilty of gross 
 Pharisaism, that very sin which he himself describes 
 when he speaks of certain who say: “ Stand by thyself, 
 come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These, 
 saith the Lord, are a smoke in my nose.” And that pious 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP. 111. 13—LIIL 19. 73 
 
 remnant itself must have been self-righteous and im- 
 pious could they for one moment have thus understood 
 
 and accepted his words concerning the suffering Servant 
 as applicable to themselves. Whenever the prophet 
 
 speaks in the first person of himself, in common with 
 
 his brethren, his language is that of penitence. It is 
 
 therefore most evident that in this chapter, when he 
 
 describes the righteous Servant suffering vicariously 
 
 not for his own sins, but for the sins of others, he 
 
 means some one distinct from himself and from the 
 
 pious remnant ; and that where he says: “ All we, like 
 
 sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his 
 
 own way ; and the Lorp hath laid on H1m the iniquity of 
 us all,” he includes himself and the best of his fellow- 
 
 -worshippers. 
 
 We have, moreover, an independent witness that 
 this notion of a pious remnant suffering vicariously for 
 the rest is groundless in fact. The prophet Ezekiel 
 was among those Jews carried captive in Jehoiachin’s 
 reign, eleven years before the rest of their country- 
 men; he lived with them in exile on the banks of the 
 Chebar, a tributary of the Euphrates; and his pro- 
 phecies were delivered during twenty-seven years, 
 extending sixteen years into the Babylonish captivity. 
 He is, if we except Daniel, the nearest contemporary 
 witness to the state of the captives. Yet in chapter 
 xviii. he distinctly meets the complaint of some, that 
 the children were suffering unjustly for the sins of 
 their ancestors. ‘ What mean ye by this proverb, The 
 fathers have eaten sow’ grapes, and the children’s teeth are 
 set on edge? As 1 live, saith the Lorp God, ye shall not 
 have occasion any more to use this proverb: in Israel. 
 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so 
 also the soul of the son ts mine: the soul that sinneth, it 
 shall die. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon 
 him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” 
 
74 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 The notion of a pious remnant suffering instead of a 
 
 careless and idolatrous majority enjoying comparative 
 
 ease and security, is certainly contradicted by the 
 representatives of Ezekiel here. 
 
 _ The objections I have urged do not, perhaps, so obvi- 
 ously he against that explanation advocated by Grotius, 
 and lately by Baron Bunsen, that JereMrAn is the ἘΠ 
 ing servant meant. i Seas doubt, a similarity 
 between parts of Jeremiah’s writings τ the language 
 
 ‘of our chapter, e.g. Lam. i. 12: “Is tt nothing to you, all 
 ye that pass by? Behold, and see if there be any sorrow 
 hike unto my sorrow wherewith the Lorp hath afflicted me 
 in the day of His fierce anger.” Lam. iii. 5, 15, 19: “1 
 am the man that hath seen affliction by the roll of His 
 wrath; Iwas a derision to all my people, and their song: 
 all the day.” These expressions resemble Isa. liii. 3. 
 Again, Jer. xi. 19: “J was like a lamb or an ox that is 
 brought to the slaughter ; and I knew not that they had 
 devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree 
 with the fruit thereof, and let us cut Him off from the land 
 of the living.” Again, in Jer. vii. 16, xi. 14, xiv. 11, 
 Jeremiah is told “not to pray or make intercession for 
 the people,” somewhat answering to the words (liii. 12): 
 “ He made intercession for the transgressors.” 
 
 This similarity of language suggests the supposition 
 that Jeremiah had before him the prophecy of the 
 fifty-third chapter, and that in his life and experience 
 he shadowed forth the desertion and isolation of the 
 divine Sufferer. But when we descend to particulars, 
 and apply the passage part by part to Jeremiah, we 
 find that the resemblance wholly breaks down. Jere- 
 miah’s sufferings were not expiatory; the people 
 suffered as well as the prophet; and it could not in any 
 true sense be said of him, by his stripes the people were 
 healed. The latter part of the prophecy, moreover, 
 describing the subsequent triumph of the Servant : 
 
SEC. 4,.—CHAP. LI. 13—LIII, 12. 75 
 
 “ When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall 
 see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of 
 the Lorp shall prosper in His hand,” cannot in any fair 
 sense be made to apply to Jeremiah. 
 
 As to those who take the guffering servant to be, 
 ideal Israel, it is not easy to understand whom they 
 mean by the term, or in what manner they can apply 
 the passage to a mere idea. Ideal Israel seems to 
 signify the chosen people collectively, as God would 
 have them, and as contrasted with the heathen. “Israel 
 according to the flesh,” says Dr. Davidson, ‘“ the theo- 
 cratic people here fill the prophet’s eye and soul; he 
 contemplates them in their high vocation to the nations 
 of the world. Israel has a mission.to the Gentiles, 
 whom they enlighten and free from idolatry. They 
 become a mediatorial people between God and the 
 apostate nations. They endure opposition and reproach 
 on account of their mission ; but God is their Protector. 
 Their exaltation is to be in proportion to the humilia- 
 tion preceding it. The prophet describes ideal Israel 
 in His low condition and His sufferings; but the humilia- | 
 tion and sufferings are vicarious. Though personally 
 innocent, He is unresisting. The nations behold Him 
 bearing stripes for sins not His own; but the glorious 
 fruit of those very sufferings will correct all errors, and 
 His reward is secured. The mighty are subdued to 
 - obedience, and the theocracy flourishes with renewed 
 vigour” (Introduction to the O. T. iii. 74). 
 
 Now, apart from the prophecy before us, there is . 
 truth in these representations. Israel has been the 
 instrument of blessing to the Gentiles. St. Paul 
 recognises this in his Epistle to the Romans (xi. 11, 
 12): “ Through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles ; 
 blindness in part ts hajwened to Israel, till the fulness of the 
 Gentiles be come in. The fall of them is the riches of the 
 world, and the diminishing ef them the riches of the Gentiles ; 
 
76 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 how. much more their fulness!” But is it not contrary to 
 the prophet’s words, and contrary to what is known 
 historically concerning Israel, that their sufferings were 
 vicarious? Isaiah in these later chapters repeatedly 
 says that the sufferings of Israel were the result of 
 their own sin. And do we not know in fact that 
 salvation came to the Gentiles, not through the 
 vicarious sufferings of the Jews, but through their 
 wilful rejection of the Messiah, whose betrayers and 
 |murderers they became? At verse 8 we read: “ For 
 the transgression of my people (°2¥) was He stricken.” Now, 
 whether God or the prophet be taken as the speaker, 
 the words my people cannot surely’ refer to the 
 heathen. God’s people, the people to whom the prophet 
 belonged, was Israel; and, according to the description, 
 Israel, so far from being a vicariously suffering people, 
 were themselves the transgressors for whom the Servant 
 dies. In chapter xlviii. 4-8 they are called “ obstinate, 
 stujinecked, and faithless, transgressors from the womb.” 
 The heathen, on the other hand, so far from being 
 redeemed by the suffering people, are represented as 
 doomed to punishment; see, for example, the prophecy 
 against Babylon, chapter xlviii. The prophet, more- 
 over, never identifies himself with the heathen by the 
 use of we when he is speaking of them. In a word, 
 whatever truth there be in the idea that Israel, as 
 God’s people, were in some sense the instruments and 
 mediators: of redemption for the Gentiles, we cannot 
 see how the opinion that by the we in this chapter the 
 prophet means the heathen, and by the suffering 
 servant ideal Israel as the mediators of redemption to 
 them, can logically be sustained. 
 
 If, leaving these various and mutually opposite newly 
 suggested interpretations,—wherein, for example, if 
 Gesenius be right, Ewald and Bunsen are wrong; if 
 Ewald be right, Gesenius and Bunsen are wrong; ahd 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP.. LII. 18—LIIL. 12. 1% 
 
 if Bunsen is right, Gesenius and Ewald are in error, 
 each great name having others equally great against 
 him,—we resort to the old primarily and universally 
 received explanation, which finds in this prophecy a 
 description of none other than the Incarnate Son of 
 God, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, all becomes harmonious 
 and plain. The Servant of Jehovah is described as 
 being sprung from a family which had fallen from 
 grandeur and were in humble circumstances. ‘“‘ He: 
 shall grow up before Jehovah as a tender plant, and as a 
 root out of a dry ground.” Similarly in Isaiah xi. we 
 read: ‘“ He shall come forth asa shoot from the stem of 
 Jesse, and as a sucker from among his roots.” The 
 prophet’s words describe a state of humiliation 
 answering exactly to the circumstances of the birth 
 and lineage of Jesus. ‘“‘ He had no form nor comeliness ; 
 and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should 
 desire Him.” So of Jesus it was said: “Js not this the 
 carpenter? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, 
 and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us? And 
 they were offended in Him.” The prophet proceeds: “‘ He 
 is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and ἡ 
 acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from 
 Him: He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.” In 
 whom -were these words accomplished but in Jesus, the 
 meek, lowly, and patient sufferer, the Son of man who 
 had not where to lay’His head; a worm and no man; 
 a reproach of men, and despised of the people; who was 
 set at naught as a glutton and a winebibber, a friend 
 of publicans and sinners ; of whom they cried, Not this 
 man, but Barabbas ; who was buffeted, smitten on the’ 
 cheek and crowned with thorns, and nailed upon the 
 cross? ‘Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our 
 sorrows. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted ; yet He 
 opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the 
 slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He 
 
78 E . THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 opened not His mouth.” Of whom speaketh the prophet 
 
 this, but of Him to whom the Baptist pointed as he 
 
 cried: ‘‘ Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin 
 
 of the world”? He was numbered with the transgressors, 
 
 crucified between two thieves; He made intercession for 
 
 the transgressors: ‘‘ Father, forgive them; for they know 
 
 not what they do.” They appointed Him His grave 
 
 among the wicked; side by side with the wicked did 
 
 - He descend into the grave, and with the. rich was He 
 
 ἴῃ His death. Yet in His resurrection and His exalta- 
 tion He saw His seed, those who were God’s children 
 
 through faith in Him; He prolonged His days, yea, and 
 
 is alive for evermore; and the pleasure of the Lord 
 prospers in His hand. He sees of the travail of His soul, 
 
 and is satisfied: by His knowledge shall my RIGHTEOUS 
 
 SERVANT justify many. ‘ Being justified by faith, we 
 
 have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 
 by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” 
 
 “ Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and 
 He shall divide the spoil with thé strong.” God gave His 
 
 Son the heathen for His inheritance, and the uttermost 
 parts of the earth for His possession. ‘‘ Every tongue 
 
 shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of 
 God the Father.” ‘‘ At the name of Jesus every knee 
 
 shall bow; for He hath upon His vesture and upon 
 
 His thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord of 
 lords.” 
 
 It is a significant fact that the Messianic interpre- 
 tation was at the first universally adopted by the Jews 
 themselves. Gesenius himself allows, “ It was only the 
 later Jews who abandoned this interpretation.” They 
 carefully, however, qualified the words which imply 
 pain, and suffering, and humiliation. ‘“ Behold,” says 
 the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan (cic. A.D. 200), 
 ‘“my servant Messiah shall prosper. He shall be high 
 and great, and strong exceedingly.” The Jewish 
 
SEC. 4.—CHAP. 111. 13~LIII. 12. 79 
 
 prayers used at the Passover quote this chapter with 
 reference to the Messiah. ‘High and lifted up and 
 exalted shall He be that is despised ; He shall deal 
 prudently, and shall reprove, and shall sprinkle many.’ 
 
 ‘ Messiah, our riphteousness, was pierced for our trans- 
 gressions; He ἢ our τ on His shoulder, to find 
 forgiveness for our iniquities.” The Midrash Tanchuma 
 (a.p. 440), fol. 58, says: “It is King Messias who shall 
 be exalted and ἘΠ and be very high, higher than 
 Abraham, more exalted than Moses, and loftier than 
 the aaa angels.” Aben Ezra (οὗ. 1167) admits 
 that his predecessors referred this section to the Messiah. 
 
 See Wiinsche, Die Leiden des Messias, p. 40 sqq. Rabbi 
 Alschech (in as commentary on this chapter, A.p. 1601) 
 says: “Upon the testimony of tradition, our old Rabbins 
 have unanimously admitted that ime Messiah is here 
 the subject of discourse.” But when Christians ad- 
 duced this chapter in argument for Jesus of Nazareth 
 as the Messiah, they began to apply certain parts to 
 themselves. While the righteous Servant was the Messiah, 
 they were the despised and rejected of men. “The 
 holy generation, the elect of Israel, pray for Israel’s 
 sins,” says Jonathan in his Targum; “and for their 
 sake Judah’s iniquities are forgiven, though we, the 
 Jewish people, be regarded as bruised, smitten, and 
 afflicted.” With this reserve Jonathan applies the 
 passage to the Messiah. By degrees, however, we 
 discover in the history of Jewish belief the doctrine of 
 two Messiahs—namely, Messiah the son of David, and 
 Messiah the son of Joseph. Zech. xii. 10-12 led to 
 this theory: “ They shall look upon me whom they have 
 pierced, and they shall mourn for Him.” To Messiah the 
 son of Joseph they applied every passage expressive of 
 suffering; while to Messiah the son of David belonged 
 all that speak of glory and triumph. Messiah the son 
 of Joseph was to be the restorer of the ten tribes. This 
 
80 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 was simply an attempt to escape the force of the 
 Christian argument; but it involved the acknowledg- 
 ment that they recognised in O. T. prophecy a suffering 
 Messiah. Indeed, many Jews, in committing to writing 
 the reason of their conversion to Christianity, acknow- 
 ledged that it was the perusal of this chapter which 
 had shaken their faith in their old creed and teachers. 
 
 Sec. 5. Objections raised against the Messianic 
 Interpretation. 
 
 It is urged, first, that it involves what is contrary to 
 the nature and genius of O. T. prophecy. ‘The O. T. 
 seer,’ says Dr. Davidson, summing up the arguments 
 of Gesenius, Ewald, and Knobel, “ never projected his 
 vision into the far distant future, so as to be able to 
 predict events there, or describe persons beforehand 
 with infallible accuracy. No example of such fore- 
 shadowing can be adduced. The near, not the remote, 
 was the limit of prophetic foretelling.” 
 
 If these words meant that any miraculous interpre- 
 tation whatever by way of revelation or inspiration to’ 
 the O. T. seer must on ἃ priori grounds be regarded as 
 impossible, or, in brief, that the miraculous must 
 wholly be eliminated from our faith, they would simply 
 beckon us into a range of thought outside the limits of 
 Christianity and of the Bible, and therefore beyond 
 the boundaries of our present investigation. Not only 
 the prophecies concerning the Messiah as a sufferer, 
 but those which describe Him as a king, must on this 
 ground be swept away, at least as prophecies, as con- 
 taining anything more than human presentiment and 
 sagacity. Nay, of the Messiah Himself, in His incar- 
 nation, His life, His death, His resurrection, His 
 ascension, little or nothing, upon such a denial of the 
 miraculous, would be left us, 
 
SEC. 5.— OBJECTIONS TO THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION, 81 
 
 But this cannot be the meaning of writers whose 
 faith in the Christian religion, and in our Saviour as 
 Divine, is traceable and apparent in their works. The 
 possibility of miracles, nay, the fact of them as far as 
 the N. T. is concerned, is acknowledged by them. The 
 objection simply amounts to this, that, as a matter of 
 fact, and judging from their writings, “the O. T. seers 
 did not project their vision into the far distant future, 
 —their prophetic teaching, as a rule, dealt with the 
 near, not with the remote; that the range of prophetic 
 vision was as nearly as possible within the limits of 
 the natural.” But, let it be remembered, the difference 
 of five, fifty, or five hundred years is comparatively a 
 secondary consideration in the case of any prediction 
 which was more than a mere guess, or presentiment, or 
 intellectual inference. Once let it be granted—as it 
 must be if we do not deny the nairaculous, if we accept 
 QO. T. prediction in any one case—that the prophet 
 was gifted by God, through vision or revelation, to 
 foresee and foretell with certamty any future fact which 
 he could not discover by his own unassisted faculties, 
 and the time elapsing between the prediction and the 
 event is a question of minor consequence. If a prophet 
 was not himself informed by the Divine Spirit as to the 
 date when the prophecy should bé accomplished, it 
 could make no difference to him whether it were: one 
 century or seven centuries afterwards. Nor is it 
 necessary to suppose that the prophet himself under- 
 stood the full bearing and reference. of the prophecy he 
 was inspired to record. “ Of which salvation,” says the 
 Apostle Peter (1 Peter 1. 9-11), “the prophets have - 
 inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the 
 grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what 
 manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did 
 signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, 
 and the glory that should follow.” 
 
 F 
 
82 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 The objection when thus narrowed, as not involving 
 the denial of the miraculous, but merely as to the fact 
 whether or not in the miraculous vision-the prophet 
 saw fifty or five hundred years onwards, is further a 
 petitio principu. The very question is, Is this a 
 Messianic prophecy? Do these words foreshadow the 
 sufferings of Jesus, which took place centuries after- 
 wards? Is not this at least one instance in which 
 prophetic foretelling concerns the remote? To affirm 
 that prophetic foretelling never concerns the remote, 
 is to beg the question. We turn to Isa. xi., which 
 almost all expositors, including Gesenius, take to be 
 a Messianic prophecy. We turn to Ps. ii, which 
 most expositors, Jewish as well as Christian, affirm to 
 be a Messianic prophecy. Are we to reject the Mes- 
 sianic interpretation of each of these in turn, upon the 
 ground that prophetic foretelling never concerns the 
 remote, but only the near? These and many other 
 prophecies are so many examples showing that, as a 
 matter of fact, prophetic foretelling does sometimes 
 concern the remote. As to the fact itself, I repeat 
 that we need not go beyond the earlier portion of the 
 Book of Isaiah for examples of the remote being the 
 acknowledged theme of the prophet’s foretelling. 
 Ewald and Dr. Davidson, as well as Gesenius, acknow- 
 ledge the Messianic import of Isa. ix. regarding the 
 Wonderful, and of Isa. xi. and of other portions of this 
 prophet’s writings which describe the Messianic king- 
 dom in its righteousness and glory. 
 
 2. It is objected that the Jews had no conception of 
 a suffering Messiah. They looked forward to their 
 deliverer from misfortune and thraldom as a king and 
 conqueror; and the supposed picture of the suffering 
 Servant in Isa. 1111, would only, if understood by them 
 of the Messiah, have increased their despondency. 
 
 Now, it is certainly true that most O. T. descriptions 
 
SEC. 5.—OBJECTIONS TO THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION. 83 
 
 of the Messiah represent Him as a conqueror and a 
 king. But when we remember that He was to embody 
 in Himself the office of priest as well as of king, to 
 make expiation for the people’s sins as well as to rule 
 over them, the case of Melchizedek in Genesis, and 
 the entire Jewish priesthood and ritual, must be 
 regarded as a foreshadowing of His office and work. 
 If this were the only place in the O. T. in which 
 the Messiah is represented as suffering a sacrificial 
 and expiatory death, the fact would still remain that 
 He is thus represented here; and it is again a petitio 
 principu to affirm He is never thus represented, therefore 
 He is not thus represented here. But this, we submit, is 
 not the only part of the O. T. which represents © 
 the Messiah as a sufferer. He is thus described 
 in Ps. xxii. In Micah v. 1: “They shall smite 
 the Judge of Israel upon the cheek.” In Zech. xii. 
 10: “ They shall look on me whom they have- pierced,” 
 —a prophecy which the Jews applied as Messianic, 
 referring it, as some did, to Messiah ben Joseph. 
 . Dan. ix. 24 (even if we assent to the later date, B.c. 
 167): “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, 
 and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to 
 make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for 
 auquity, and to .bring in everlasting righteousness. Know 
 therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the 
 commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto Messiah 
 the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two 
 weeks. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah 
 be cut off, but not for Himself.” . 
 
 These passages, which were acknowledged as Mes- 
 sianic by the early Jews, confirm the Messianic re- 
 ference of Isa. lili, and if fairly interpreted, belie 
 the assertion that the O. T. knows nothing of a 
 suffering Messiah. In addition to them, it must be 
 remembered that vicarious suffering and _ sacrificial 
 
84 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 death were abundantly foreshadowed in the ceremonial 
 law. “As we survey,” says Dr. Kalisch (Leviticus, 
 part i., 281), “the expiatory offerings of the Hebrews, 
 which for purity stand unrivalled in the ancient world, 
 we are bound to admit that they were pre-eminently 
 calculated to keep alive among the nation the feelings 
 of human sinfulness and the conviction of the divine 
 holiness.” “They form unquestionably an indispens- 
 able part, nay, a main pillar, of the Mosaic theology.” 
 And he points out (p. 59) that the Kabbalists held, 
 that “after the advent of the true Messiah no animal 
 sacrifice would be required, since He would Himself 
 effect all that can be hoped for from sacrifices ;” “the 
 Messiah will deliver up His soul, and pour it out unto 
 death; and His blood will atone the people of the 
 Lorp.” 
 
 The very term my Servant is applied to the Messiah 
 in Ezek. xxxvii. 24, 25: “They shall be my people, 
 and I will be their God: and David my sprvantT shall be 
 King over them ; and they shall all have one Shepherd: and 
 My SERVANT David shall be their Prince for ever.” tn 
 Zech. iii. 8: “ Behold, I will bring forth my servant The 
 Branch ;” cf. Jer. xxiii. 5, 6: “‘ Behold, I will raise unto 
 David a righteous Branch, and a King shail reign and 
 _ prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 
 In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell 
 safely ; and this is the name whereby He shall be called, 
 
 The Lord our Righteousness.” These texts, acknowledged — 
 
 by the Jews as Messianic, do indeed speak of the 
 Messiah as a King; yet side by side with this title He 
 is named with the appellation Servant. 
 
 Though not an argument for unbelieving Jews, it 
 surely must be an argument with all who believe in 
 the Christian religion and its divine founder, that our 
 Lord Himself and His apostles repeatedly represented 
 the coming judgments, which have since befallen the 
 
SEC. 5.—OBJECTIONS TO THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION. 85 
 
 Jews, as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus as 
 the Messiah. Christ on more than one occasion re- 
 ferred them to their Scriptures as testifying of Him, 
 . and declared their rejection of Him as their guilt. 
 - Such a charge would have been unjust and groundless 
 if the O. T. knows nothing of a suffering Messiah. 
 
 3. It is objected that those primarily addressed by 
 the prophet, and the exiles in Babylon reading or 
 hearing his words, could not have. understood such a 
 prophecy as referring to the Messiah ; it would be to 
 them altogether out of place and το occur- 
 ring in lie midst of promises concerning their return 
 from captivity. 
 
 But the other prophecies, as we have seen, those ἡ 
 preceding and those following chapter liii., ΕΙΠΕ con- 
 tain promises of restoration to the exiles, cree side 
 by side Messianic predictions. This is evident in Isa. 
 ix., where verse 2 passes, from the local and particular 
 in verse 1, to the largest and fullest description of 
 gospel times. The same thing appears in chapters xi., 
 XXV., XXxii., and continually in the subsequent chap- 
 ters of the later portion. Indeed, this is the charac- 
 teristic of Messianic prophecy; it is engrafted upon 
 the local and starts from it, but suddenly goes forth 
 far beyond, outwards into the distant future. To 
 describe the state of the case more exactly, Messianic 
 prophecy is of two kinds— typico-Messianic and pro- 
 phetico-Messianic. By typico-Messianic prophecy, we 
 understand those utterances wherein the local and 
 contemporaneous circumstances in the midst of which 
 the prophet lived are the theme of his discourse, so 
 that every expression he makes use of is capable of a 
 local and temporary reference; yet his words are 
 applicable to Messianic times and events, and thus 
 have to Christian readers a higher and a wider mean- 
 ing, over and above that which they possessed when 
 
86 . THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 first uttered. This is what Dr. Arnold called the 
 second sense of prophecy. The term typico-Messianic 
 more accurately describes it, because the circumstances 
 
 and times of the writer became typical of future and - 
 spiritual realities. But, over and above these, there - 
 
 are other Messianic utterances wherein the words of 
 the prophet rise to a point far above the local and 
 temporary, and are quite unmeaning and inexplicable 
 if applied thereto. He is inspired to utter words 
 which he feels to be far beyond his own locus standi, 
 the full reference of which he may not himself see,— 
 declarations which are therefore appropriately desig- 
 nated prophetico-Messianic. These prophetico-Messianic 
 * prophecies are usually grafted upon the local and 
 temporary, and start therefrom, but suddenly rise far 
 above and beyond. It is not necessary to suppose 
 that the prophet himself in each case understood what 
 the fulfilment of his words would be; for, as St. Peter 
 says: “ They searched what, or what manner of time, the 
 Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it 
 testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory 
 which should follow.” If it be said that in these pro- 
 phetico- Messianic passages we must suppose some 
 miraculous influence brought to bear upon the prophet, 
 carrying him beyond the range of his own unassisted 
 foresight and sagacity, judgment, and imagination, we 
 quite allow that this is so; this is the distinctive 
 element of Scripture prophecy, as compared with the 
 presentiments and declarations of heathen oracles. To 
 deny the miraculous is to put an end to all inquiry 
 regarding prophetic interpretation; it is the ἃ priori 
 ground upon which Spinoza consistently denied the 
 possibility of prophecy in the full sense of the term. 
 To deny the miraculous is to deny the reality of those 
 facts of the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and 
 Ascension, which are the subject-matter and the goal 
 
SEG. 5.—OBJECTIONS TO THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION. 87 
 
 of Messianic hope. But, granting these facts, we 
 grant the miraculous, and we must admit not only the 
 possibility, but the fitness, of miraculous influence to 
 herald and foretell them. Granting the possibility and 
 fitness of this miraculous influence upon the prophet, 
 we must allow that his prophetico-Messianic declara- 
 tions would most naturally find their place in the 
 midst of his songs or discourses when he was dwelling 
 prospectively upon some local and personal sufferings, 
 or hoped-for deliverances and triumphs. 
 
 Whether or not the contemporaries of the prophet 
 or the exiles in Babylon understood the prophet’s 
 words in this fifty-third chapter as prophetico-Mes- - 
 sianic, we cannot positively say. We know, however, 
 that the Jews in Christ’s time did thus understand 
 them. There are indications in the New Testament 
 that the Baptist (John i. 29) and Simeon (Luke 11. 34, 
 35) thus regarded them. And the use our .Saviour 
 made of them in His discourses proves not only that 
 He thus understood them, but that He expected His 
 hearers as Jews thus to understand them; according 
 to His own words: “Search the Scriptures ; they are they 
 which testify of Mx.” 
 
 A, It is urged against the Messianic interpretation, 
 that the Servant is manifestly a plurality of persons, 
 for He is called Jacob and Israel,—terms which do not 
 mean an individual, but the eae family or people. 
 Mention, moreover, is made of His death in the plural 
 in li. 9. 
 
 This objection rests upon the supposition that the 
 term Servant must be taken throughout the prophecy 
 with one and the same reference. We have, on the 
 ’ contrary, endeavoured to show how it is used in 
 different senses; how in some places it expressly 
 denotes the chosen people, how in others it stands for 
 the prophets; how in the chapters following the fifty- 
 
88 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 third it occurs only in the plural as denoting a class 
 of characters, and how in certain places the term cul- 
 minates in one individual, in the Messiah. ΣΝ is a 
 very wide term, and there is nothing to forbid our 
 thus giving the word a wide or a narrow, a generic or 
 a personal reference, according to the connection in 
 which it stands. And as to the plural in 1111. 9 ("93), 
 the same word occurs; and in the plural in Ezek. 
 xxvill. 10: “ Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircum- 
 cised,” where the vrophet is speaking of an individual, 
 the prince of Tyrus. Some, moreover, explain this 
 plural as the pluralis excellentiv, and refer to Y28, his 
 master, Gen. xxiv. 9; Y2¥2, Ex. xxi. 4, 29; and rps, 
 in Him that made him, Ps. exlix. 2. Whichever ex- 
 planation we adopt, the suffix is still in the singular, 
 and this one plural form weighs as nothing when put 
 into the balance with the singulars which run through- 
 out the chapter. See the Commentary. 
 
 Once more, fifthly, it is objected that the inter- 
 change of the past tense with the future in the narra- 
 tive is against. the Messianic interpretation. The 
 prophet speaks of the Servant’s sufferings as past: 
 “* He was cut off; He was stricken,’ but his exaltation 
 as future: “ Therefore will I appoint Him a portion with 
 the great,” etc. Now everything Messianic was future 
 to the writer; his reference here accordingly must 
 be to some servant or servants who had already 
 suffered, but were about to be exalted. 
 
 To this we reply, that in verse 2 futures are used 
 respecting the early life of the Servant: “ He shall 
 grow up before Him; when we shall see Him, there is no 
 beauty that we should desire Him. He is brought as a 
 lamb to the slaughter (future), and as ἃ sheep before her ἡ 
 shearers is dumb, so He opened (future) not His mouth. 
 They assigned Him (future) His grave with the wicked. 
 When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin” (future), 
 
SEC. 6—NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 89 
 
 Thus we find the Hebrew future frequently occurring 
 where in our version the past is used. In other parts 
 of the chapter the substantive verb is supplied, the 
 time not being indicated in the Hebrew. But, once 
 more, it is hardly necessary to repeat that the so-called 
 past and future tenses in Hebrew are not by modern 
 Hebraists taken in themselves to denote time. There 
 is, in fact, a present, past, or future perfect, and a 
 present, past, or future zmnperfect. ‘The Hebrew 
 verb,” says Mr. Driver (p. 7), ‘notifies the character 
 without fixing the date of an action; and of-its two 
 forms” (commonly called future and past), “one is 
 calculated to describe an action as incipient, and so as 
 imperfect ; the other, to describe it as completed, and 
 so as perfect.” Professor Land (Hebrew Gr. translated 
 by R. L. Poole, sec. 187) calls these forms moods. 
 ‘“‘ According as the action or state expressed by the 
 verb is viewed as commanded, unfinished, or finished, 
 three moods are distinguished, the imperative, the im- 
 perfect, and the perfect. Whether the time referred to 
 be past, present, or future, has to be gathered from 
 the context.” 
 
 See. 6. Application of this Chapter by N. T. Writers. 
 
 It now remains for us to consider the strong con- 
 firmation of the Messianic interpretation (thus upon 
 internal grounds established) to be found in the appli- 
 cation which the N. T. writers make of this passage, 
 in every part of it, to our Lord. 
 
 Every part, I say, of this prophecy is applied in the 
 N. T. directly to Christ, as fulfilled in Him alone. 
 
 lii. 15 we find quoted by St. Paul in Rom. xv. 20, 
 21: ‘‘ Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not 
 where Christ was named, lest I should build upon 
 another man’s foundation: but, as it is written, 70 
 
90 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 whom He was not spoken of they shall see: and they that 
 have not heard shall understand.” . 
 
 111. 1. Quoted in John xii. 37, 38: “But though 
 He had done so many miracles before them, yet they 
 believed not on Him: that the saying of Esaias the 
 prophet might be fulfilled, which He spake, Lord, who 
 hath believed our report ? oa to whom hath the arm -of the 
 Lord been revealed ?” 
 
 Also in Rom. x. 16: “ But they have not all obeyed 
 the gospel, for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our 
 report Ὁ 
 
 111. 4. Quoted in Matt. viii. 17: “He healed all 
 that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken by Hsaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our 
 infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” 
 
 lin. 5, 6. Quoted in 1 Pet. ii. 24, 25 :\“ Who Mis 
 own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that 
 we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness : 
 by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep 
 going astray.” 
 
 lui. 7, 8. Quoted in Acts viii. 32, 33: “The place 
 of the Scripture which he read was this, He was led as 
 a sheep to the slaughter: and lke a lamb dumb before his 
 shearer, so opened He not His mouth: in His humiliation 
 His judgment was taken away: and who shall declare His 
 generation ? for His life is taken from the earth. And 
 the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of 
 whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of 
 some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and 
 began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him 
 Jesus.” 
 
 lili. 9. Quoted in 1 Pet. ii. 22: “Christ also suffered 
 for us... who did no sin, neither was guile found in His 
 mouth.” 
 
 li. 10. Referred to in 2 Cor. v. 21: “For He hath 
 made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” 
 
SEC. 6.-—NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. τ᾿ 91 
 
 111. 11, 12. Referred to in Heb. ix. 28: “Christ was 
 once offered to bear the sins of many.” 
 
 111. 12. Quoted in Mark xv. 28: “And the Scripture 
 was fulfilled which saith, And He was numbered with the 
 transgressors.” Also in Luke xxii. 87, the words of our 
 Lord Himself: ‘‘ For I say unto you, That this that is 
 written must yet be accomplished in me, And He was 
 reckoned among the transgressors: for the things con- 
 cerning me have an end.” Ta περὶ ἐμοῦ are, according 
 to de Wette, τὰ yeypdupeva, “the things written con- 
 cerning me must have their accomplishment.” 
 
 Three other passages must be cited as bearing upon 
 the Messianic interpretation. (1.) Luke xxiv. 25, 26: 
 ‘Then He said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart 
 to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought 
 not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter 
 into His glory?” Verses 44-46: “He said unto 
 them, These are the words which I spake unto you, 
 while I was yet with you, that all things must be 
 fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and 
 in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. 
 Then opened He their understanding, that they might 
 understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus 
 it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and 
 to rise from the dead the third day.” Here we have a 
 summary of Messianic prophecy by Christ Himself, 
 and in it He declares that the O. T. prophesied of His 
 sufferings. The fact that immediately before His passion 
 the Lord quoted our chapter (see Luke xxii. 37), and 
 that afterwards His apostles and the evangelists quoted 
 it as fulfilled in His obedience unto death, surely 
 warrant the supposition and belief that Isa. 1111. must 
 have been the passage, or at least one of the passages, 
 selected by the Redeemer. 
 
 (2.) The testimony of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 
 8: “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip- 
 
92 THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 tures.” This, though not a quotation (cf. ver. 4), is a 
 solemn summary of the apostle’s faith and preaching. 
 Isa. lili. 5: διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν must have been in 
 his mind. That he found a suffering Messiah described 
 in the prophets, and thus habitually reasoned with the 
 Jews, is clear from Acts: xiii, 27-29, xvii. 2, 3 (zt 
 τὸν Χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν), Xxvi. 22, 23 (παθητὸς ὁ Χριστός), 
 xxvill. 28. Paul was not a man to commit a pious 
 fraud in dealing with the Old Testament. 
 
 (3.) A passage already referred to more than once, 
 but most important as an early testimony coming from 
 the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. i. 10, 11): “Of which 
 salvation the prophets have inquired and searched 
 diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should 
 come unto you: searching what, or what manner of 
 time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did 
 signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of 
 Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Some take 
 the expression τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα to mean the 
 sufferings of the universal church. Bengel, de Wette, 
 and Alford understand the expression as referring to 
 Christ’s own sufferings, “‘the stfferings destined for 
 Christ ;” Luther, Calvin, and others take it to mean . 
 the sufferings of Christ mystically, 1.6. of Christ the 
 Head, Christ Himself, and of His body the church. 
 Whichever interpretation we adopt, the sufferings of 
 Christ Himself are clearly included; and regarding 
 these the Apostle Peter says that the Holy Spirit, 
 through the prophets, testified beforehand. The fifty- 
 third of Isaiah must have been uppermost in his mind, 
 for this-is the portion of Ὁ. T. prophecy which he 
 repeatedly refers to and quotes when he describes 
 Christ’s sufferings ; see i. 19, 20, ii. 22-25, iii. 18. Also 
 Acts i. 18 (παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ), x. 43, 
 
SEC. 7,—CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. 93 
 
 Sec. 7. Conclusions arrived at. 
 
 The conclusions to which the argument has brought 
 us are the following :— 
 
 1. That the title Servant of Jehovah is not used in 
 one and the same sense, but with various meanings, 
 throughout the prophecy. 
 
 2. That in the later chapters, from liii. to Ixvi., it is 
 used in the plural only, and to designate a alas of 
 characters, whether among Jews or Gentes the elect 
 people or strangers, who embrace the offers of salvation. 
 
 3. That it occasionally refers to the prophet himself, 
 or “y the prophets as distinct from the people. 
 
 . “That it often is expressly given to Jacob and 
 Israel.” the chosen people. 
 
 5. Ther 3 in three passages, of which lii. 13-liii. 12 is 
 chief, it cannot have any of these meanings 
 
 6. That in these passages the prophet expressly and 
 emphatically speaks not of a class, nor of a company, " 
 nor of an ideal, but of @ person distinct from himself 
 and his fellow-countrymen,’ contrasted with them, as 
 holiness is contrasted with sin, yet suffering buffeting 
 and rejection, sorrow and death vicariously, not for 
 His own sins, but for theirs ; ἃ righteous Servant, who 
 was numbered with the transgressors and bare the sin 
 of many, but who was raised to life again and crowned 
 with power, glory, and victory. 
 
 7. That in no individual, in no class or ideal fellow- 
 ship, had this prophecy any adequate fulfilment, accord- 
 ing to the plain grammatical meaning of the words, 
 until the advent of the Eternal Son, and that in Him 
 we find it in every particular completely accomplished. 
 
 8. That the Lord Jesus Himself, His evangelists, and 
 His apostles, frequently name and recognise this part 
 of the Jewish Scriptures as pointing to and fulfilled in 
 Him. 
 
94 ' THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 9. That in the use of the expression Ai 72y we find 
 in the prophecy three concentric circles. The widest 
 and outer circle embraces all who fear and love 
 Jehovah ; the next includes the chosen people, Jacob 
 and Israel; within the third are the prophets; and as 
 the innermost circle or centre of the whole, is the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. To use the comparison of Delitzsch : 
 ‘The idea of the Servant of Jehovah is a pyramid. The 
 base is Israel as a whole; the central section was that 
 Israel which was not merely κατὰ σάρκα, but κατὰ 
 πνεῦμα; the apex is the person of the Mediator of 
 salvation springing out of Israel.” Oehler compares it 
 to an ascent from the widéspreading foundations of a 
 cathedral up to the dome on which the cross is plarued, 
 and to the very cross itself. If we may sugaest one 
 comparison more, it is like the ascent from’ the plain 
 of Israel up the mountain-side, on the summit of which 
 stands the cross, and from which we look abroad on a 
 . widespreading landscape, illustrating the glory of th 
 church. | 
 
 10. That the section lii. 13—liii. 12 applies to a 
 personal sufferer simply the ideas of sacrifice, substi- 
 tution, and expiation, which were familiarized to the 
 Jewish people in their ritual. The paschal lamb slain 
 in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt, the 
 sacrifice and ritual of the day of atonement (Lev. xvi.), 
 the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, had long em- 
 bodied before the people the truths which in this 
 chapter centre in the suffering Servant. He is brought 
 as a lamb to the slaughter; he makes his soul an 
 offering for sin; upon Him is laid the iniquity of us all. 
 The idea of vicarious suffering was neither impossible 
 nor strange to the prophet or to his readers. 
 
 Nay, more, deeper even than Jewish thought and 
 associations in his heart of hearts as a man, as a sinner 
 _ before God, there must have lain the idea, which all 
 
SEC. 7.—CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. 95 
 
 men of all religions possess more or less strongly and 
 clearly, that propitiation is necessary, that a sin- 
 offermg must be made, to vindicate God’s law and to 
 satisfy the sinner’s conscience in the forgiveness of his 
 sins. When the heart grows hard and proud, this 
 humbling yet comforting conception of a righteous 
 servant of Jehovah suffering vicariously fades from the 
 conscience, and the intellect easily caricatures its child- 
 like faith into-a monstrous and ridiculous chimera, an 
 absurdity and distortion of the imagination. But to 
 the contrite in every age, to the sin-burdened soul 
 sighing for forgiveness and freedom from sin’s power, 
 this picture of a suffering Saviour as a lamb bearing 
 our sins, once a prophecy but now a history, will be 
 precious, this song of the ancient prophet will find an 
 echo in his heart; it will be the plea of his prayer 
 when he cries, Father, I have sinned, the foundation of 
 his hope when the shadows lengthen and life’s evening 
 comes, and the anthem of his praise as he casts his 
 crown before the throne in glory. Then the prophet’s 
 picture and the prophet’s song will be beheld and sung 
 in all its true reality. “I beheld, and, lo” (says the 
 Apostle John in the Apocalypse), ‘7 the midst of the 
 throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, 
 A LAMB AS IT HAD BEEN SLAIN. And they sung a new 
 song, saying, Worthy is THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN, AND 
 HATH REDEEMED Us TO Gop By HIS BLOOD, to receive 
 power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and glory, 
 and honour, and blessing.” 
 

 
COMMENTARY, GRAMMATICAL AND CRITICAL, 
 
 ON 
 
 ΤΉ BIL Pe 1111. 12: 
 
 ---...-- - 
 
 HAPTER 11. 13-15.—These verses are usually regarded 
 as introductory to chapter lili, and as a summary of 
 the prophecy there given in detail. Here the new theme 
 
 of prophecy begins, Behold. Here the subject of the pronouns 
 
 in chapter 111. is named, Behold, my Servant. Here the 
 Servant’s exaltation is announced, verse 13; His humiliation 
 (or anointing) is hinted at, verse 14, and placed side by side 
 with the blessings He confers upon the nations, and with the 
 awe and submission of the kings of the earth to Him who, 
 while a Servant, is also King of kings. 
 
 VERSE 13. 
 Ma) Sw. OM Te Paw man 
 : IND 
 
 LXX.: ᾿Ιδοὺ συνήσει ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται καὶ δοξασ- 
 θήσεται καὶ μετεωρισθήσεται σφόδρα. (Aquila: ἐπιστημονισ- 
 θήσεται δοῦλός μους Aq. Symm. Theod.: ἐπαρθήσεται καὶ 
 μετεωρισθήσεται.) 
 
 VULGATE: Eece intelliget servus meus, exaltabitur et elevabitur, 
 et sublimis errt valde. ’ 
 
 737] Behold! a demonstrative particle, identical with Π, 
 Greek ἠνί, Lat. en; frequently in Isaiah in both the earlier 
 
 and later prophecies, vii. 14, viii. 18, xii. 2, xli. 27, xlii 1. 
 G 
 
98 COMMENTARY ON ISATAH. 
 
 Sometimes, like the Chaldee 17, it has the signification 
 whether, if ; but this is not a sign of a late date, for it is used 
 ‘thus in pure Hebrew, see Lev. xxv. 20. In Isa, liv. 15 it 
 may be rendered behold. Here, answering to the same word 
 in 1. 11, it calls attention to the person and theme now to be 
 introduced. —13¥] my Servant. Segolate noun, from 729, to 
 work. The servant with the Hebrews was usually a slave; 
 but the word was commonly used, like our English word, as a 
 term of reverential humility, Gen. xviii. 3; Ps. xix. 12; Isa. 
 xxxvi. 11. Servant of God is applied to Abraham, Ps. ev. 6; 
 to Moses, Josh. 1. 1 ; to Joshua, Josh. xxiv. 29 ; to David, Ps. 
 xvill. 1; to Job, Job i. 8; to Isaiah, Isa. xx. 3. On the use 
 and reference of the word in these prophecies, see preliminary 
 dissertation. God is here the speaker; and the title my 
 Servant given by Him is most august. — 38%] shall deal pru- 
 dently, 3 sing. mas. fut. Hiphil of 52%, to look, to attend, to 
 be circumspect ; 1 Sam. xviii. 14, 30: “ David behaved wisely ;” 
 Gen. xlviii. 14 (Piel) : “ Guiding his hands wittingly ;” Hiphil, 
 often in Proverbs, to be prudent, to have wnderstanding ; Ps. 
 11. 10: “ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings ;” the participle in 
 the title of certain Psalms denoting a choice didactic ode. 
 In Josh. i. 7, 8, Deut. xxix. 8 (9), Jer. x. 21, our translators — 
 have rendered the word prosper, and thus the Chaldee renders 
 the word here (as=n‘y‘); so Martini, Gesenius, Henderson. 
 This, however, is only a secondary meaning, in which the 
 effect of the prudence is put for the prudence itself. We find 
 wisdom and good understanding named as distinguishing traits 
 of the Messiah in Isa. xi. 12; of the Servant, xlii 1-4. The 
 effect is stated in the words following. — 1‘) He shall be 
 exalted, 3 sing. mas. Kal of D4, to lift wp oneself, Ps. xxi. 14. 
 We have the participle side by side with δ) in Isa. vi. 1: “1 
 saw the LorD high and lifted wp.” The verb here has ἃ transi- 
 tive force. The LXX. ὑψωθήσεται is the word used in the 
 N. T. to denote Christ’s exaltation; by Peter, Acts ii. 33, 
 v. 31; and by Paul, Phil. ii. 9. In John xii. 32, Christ uses 
 it of His crucifixion. “Jpsa wla exaltatio Christi in cruce 
 
CHAPTER LII. 14.. 99 
 
 symbolum et fundamentum esset exaltationis ejus ad dextram 
 Patris,” Vitringa.— Nw] and extolled, 3 sing. mas. pret. Niphal 
 of ΝΣ, to bear up, to lift wp. The Niphal in Isa. ii. 2, exalted, 
 12, lifted wp, vi. 1, xxx. 25, xl. 4.  Delitzsch gives the 
 Niphal here its original reflective meaning, to raise oneself. — 
 Man] and be high, 3 sing. mas. pret. Kal. Stier traces.in 
 these three verbs the three stages of our Lord’s exaltation : 
 His resurrection, His ascension, His sitting on God’s right 
 hand. But it is Isaiah’s habit to’ enhance the idea by the 
 accumulation of synonyms, and we find this in the case of 
 these words in ii. 12, 13, vi. 1. Martini explains them as 
 “synonyma, ad vim. sententie augendam atque amplificandam 
 
 
 
 cumulata.” — W812] very, adv. adding force to the verb; see 
 Gen. 1. 31. Compare ὑπερύψωσε, in Phil. ii. 9, with ὑψωθείς, 
 in Acts ii. 33; and Eph. i. 20-23; Heb. ii. 7-9. Vitringa 
 quotes the Midrash Tanchuma: xwx omas [Ὁ on mewn ἼΡΟ ΠῚ 
 miwn ΞΟ jo man προ, “ This King, Messiah, shall be higher 
 than Abraham, more exalted than Moses, and higher than the 
 ministering angels.” The prophet’s words here are in perfect 
 keeping with the Messianic prophecy of xi. 1-10. He now 
 advances to the further truth, kingship through suffering ; ef. 
 
 5? 
 
 ΠΟΙ απ τς 32 So. 
 
 VERSE 14. 
 LAND ΓΙ ὉΠ OD) 2)» θῶ WI 
 : ΠΝ 39 TNM) ANTE 
 
 LXX.: “Ov τρόπον ἐκστήσονται (Theod. : ἐθαύμασαν) ἐπὶ σὲ 
 πολλοί, οὕτως ἀδοξήσει ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων τὸ εἶδός σου, καὶ ἡ δόξα 
 σου ἀπὸ υἱῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 VULGATE: Sicut obstupuerunt super te multi, sie inglorius 
 
 _ertt inter viros aspectus ejus, et forma ejus inter filios hominum. 
 
 We] As, according as, answering to !3, so; Ex. 1. 12: 
 
 “The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied ;” Num. 
 
100 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 ii. 17: “As they encamp, so shall they set forward ;” Isa. xxxi. 4: 
 “ As the lion, so shall the Lord come.” There is much difficulty 
 in the construction here, as well as in the true interpretation 
 of the several words. Some refer the first clause to the 
 Jewish people, and the following to the Divine Servant: “As 
 concerning thee, O people Israel, many have been astonished 
 on account of the calamities suffered by thee ; so concerning 
 Him would they be still more astonished if they saw His per- 
 secutions.” But not only, as Dathe remarks, is the mention 
 of Zion too remote (verses 8, 9); but if this had been in- 
 tended, we should have expected yyw nowy Sy we. The 
 sudden transition from the second to the third person, and 
 vice versa, is frequent in Isaiah (i. 29, 11. 5, 6, iii. 25, 26, 
 xxii. 16, xxxi. 6, xlii. 20, lxi. 7). The question next arises, to 
 which {3 does 82 answer? to that immediately following, or 
 to that beginning verse 15? Much depends upon the render- 
 ing given to NN); but most expositors, following Martini and 
 Gesenius, take the latter clause of verse 14 as parenthetic, and 
 find the apodosis answering to wx in verse 15 ; in favour of 
 this is the recurrence of 0°29 there, and the fact that if the 
 first 12 be the apodosis, we have still to find a protasis for the 
 second }3.—%9] were astonied, 3 plur. pret. Kal of δον, to 
 be dumb in astonishment; see Ezek. xxvi. 16; Jer. 11. 12, iv. 9; 
 with the idea of scorn, Jer. xviii. 16; usually in Isaiah (xlii. 
 14, xlix. 8, 19) and elsewhere, to be desolate. — 71°29] at thee. 
 Two mss., the Targ. and Syr., read YOY, the third person for the 
 second; probably an unnecessary emendation, to obviate the 
 sudden change of person. — 0°37] many, plur. of 2, from 30, ἕο 
 become many.—nnvi|3] so marred (anointed ?). Dathe supplies 
 sion, saying, so marred, ete.; so also R. 8. Jarchi, quoted by 
 Martini, who, nevertheless, prefers to view the clause as a paren- 
 thesis wherein the prophet explains the cause of the astonish- 
 ment. ΤΠ is usually taken as the part. Pual or Hophal of nnv’, 
 to destroy, either the construct (Hitzig) or the absolute for nnnvD 
 (Hiivernick), like nn’, Mal. i. 14, or like D219, Isa. x. 6, 
 with pathach unlengthened (Delitzsch). Another derivation 
 
CHAPTER LII. 14. 101 
 
 and meaning of the term is possible, viz. from the theme nvn, 
 to anoint, see Lev. vii. 35. But there the word is active— 
 the anointing ; and this meaning is not considered to be in 
 keeping with chapter liii. 2,3. It was suggested, however, 
 by L. de Dieu, and much may be urged in its favour, eg. (1) 
 the difficulty of grammatically explaining the form as derived 
 from nnv; (2) the harshness of the ordinary meaning of this 
 verb, which is not to mar simply, but to corrupt, to destroy ; 
 (3) the occurrence of Nv (Lev. x. 7, xxi. 12) and Nv in 
 connection with the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and 
 of the kings; see Ex. xxix.; 1 Sam. xvi.; (4) the appropriate- 
 ness of the word, if from MW, as applied to the Divine 
 Servant (Ps. ii. 2, xlv. 7; Isa. lxi. 1); and (5) its fitness, as 
 answering to MM 2 
 wx] lit. from man, more than any man; “a distortion 
 that destroys all likeness to a man,” Delitzsch, who ob- 
 serves that “the church before Constantine pictured Christ 
 as repulsive in appearance, whereas the church after Constan- 
 tine pictured Him as having an ideal beauty. They were 
 both right ; He was unattractive, though not deformed, in the 
 days of His flesh, but He is ideally beautiful in His glorifica- 
 tion.” —7812] His visage, aspect, noun with 3 sing. mas. pron. 
 suf., often in Ezek. i—‘8N\] and His form, with the idea of 
 beauty, formosus, see 1111. 2, from 8A, to delineate, chapter 
 xliv. 13. In comparisons, when the same thing is to be 
 twice mentioned, the word is sometimes repeated, as in Isa. 
 xxi. 3, but more frequently omitted in the second place. See 
 Isa. x. 10, lvi. 5. See Lowth, Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, 
 part 1. — O78 229] more than the sons of men. }) has here 
 again not an absolute, from, but a comparative sense. ws and 
 DIN 32 are synonymous here; see Job xxxv. 8; Micah v. 6. 
 “ Christ,” says Calvert, “will: never thank vain souls for 
 making Him ‘a beautiful man, and not regarding Him as a 
 merciful Saviour. The pencil of faith sets forth His beauty 
 best, as full of grace and truth.” 
 
102 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAT. 
 
 VERSE 15. 
 
 Daz) WER NY OF] ON AN 13 
 
 ste 
 
 WN) IN7 O02 BOND Wa 5. OS 
 aN owen 
 
 LXX. : Οὕτως θαυμάσονται (Aq. Theod. ῥαντίσει) ἔθνη πολλὰ 
 ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ συνέξουσι βασιλεῖς τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν' ὅτι οἷς οὐκ 
 ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἱ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν. 
 
 VULGATE: IJste asperget gentes multas, super ipsum contine- 
 bunt reges os swum; quia quibus non est narratum de eo vide- 
 runt, et qui non audierunt contemplati sunt. 
 
 Rom. xv. 21: Οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὄψονται: καὶ 
 οἱ οὐκ ἀκηκόασι, συνήσουσι. 
 
 12] So, answering to the ἼΝΞ of verse 14. -- 7%], shall He 
 sprinkle, 3 sing. masc. fut. Hiphil of ΠῚ), Gesenius derives the 
 original meaning of this word from the Arabic Vii. naze, to leap 
 forth. The verb occurs twenty-three times elsewhere in 
 Scripture, and always with the signification to sprinkle. Thus 
 it occurs in this prophecy, chapter lxiii. 3: “ Their blood shall 
 be sprinkled upon my garments.’ Frequently in Leviticus 
 (iv. 6, 17, v. 9, viii. 11, 30, xiv. 51, xvi. 14,19). This being 
 the undisputed signification of the verb in Hiphil wherever 
 else it occurs, why should it be rejected here? Three reasons 
 are alleged: first, it is urged, grammatically, that wherever 
 ny is used elsewhere, it is followed by by or 285, or bx. But 
 this is not so. In two places, Lev. iy. 6, 17, the thing 
 sprinkled is joined to the verb by MX, the sign of the ace. 
 The other verb, to sprinkle, PU, is used elsewhere in like manner 
 with >y (Lev. i. 5, 11, 11. 2, 8; 13); yet in Isa, xxviii. 25 
 we find it without the ὃν, « sprinkle the cummin.” The second 
 objection is, that the meaning sprinkle is inappropriate, not 
 answering to the 122¥ of verse 14, and being an abrupt repre- 
 sentation of the servant as a priest. But apart from the 
 
9 
 
 CHAPTER LII. 15. 103 
 
 unwarrantableness of rejecting a meaning philologically and 
 grammatically sanctioned because it seems to us unsuitable, 
 there is an obvious appropriateness in the use of this verb ¢o 
 sprinkle, as describing the work upon the nations of the 
 suffering Servant who is led as a lamb to the slaughter. It 
 is also in keeping with the use of the words 12 (lili. 4) 
 and ΝᾺ) (111. 8), which are used of leprosy ; since it yields (as 
 . Delitzsch observes) the significant antithesis, that He who was 
 Himself regarded as unclean would sprinkle and purify the 
 nations. The suggested meaning to leap forth is itself in keep- 
 ing neither with the antithesis of verse 14, nor with what 
 follows: “kings shall shut their mouths at Him,” denoting silent 
 reverence ; indeed, it is in itself unmeaning,; unless it be fur- 
 ther modified into what the word never signifies, namely, to 
 leap for joy. To express this idea the verb ὧν, v. 14, xxii. 
 12, or %, xvi. 10, xxxv. 2, xlix. 13, 18, is used. Thirdly, the 
 reading of the LXX. is urged, θαυμάσονται, shall wonder, or be 
 _astonished. But there is no real affinity between the meaning 
 to leap forth and to wonder. YDelitzsch says: “ The reference 
 is to their leaping up in amazement,’ which surely is far- 
 fetched ; and thus he arrives at the meaning: “he will make 
 many nations to tremble.” Martini has a long dissertation, in 
 which he discusses the origin of the LXX. reading. Durellius 
 conjectured that they read ὙΠ", from nn, referring to Ps. xi. 7, 
 xvii. 15. Vogel, that the Greek translator read or had in his 
 copy MY", which, through similarity of sound, had been sub- 
 stituted for ΠῚ, This is the more probable, because the 
 Hebrew ny’ is rendered by the LXX. θαυμάζεσθαι in Isa. xli. 
 23; see also xxix. 9. Miiller, followed by Fiirst, derives 1% 
 from the root 1, Arabic cs j_, congregatus fuit, 1.6. to collect : 
 “ He will gather to Himself many nations.” Michaelis, chang- 
 ing the vowels, would read ™', which, according to the Arabic 
 33, amenus fuit, oblectavit, he would render deliciw gentiuin 
 erit. Koppe and Houbigant adopt this rendering. A survey 
 of the various devices, suggested to supplant the supposed 
 inappropriate meaning sprinkle, forces upon us the conclu- 
 
104 COMMENTARY ON ISATAH. 
 
 sion that this, the plain signification everywhere else, must 
 be the meaning here. The Vulgate and Syriac give this ren- 
 dering, and it is adopted by the Latin Fathers, by Luther, 
 Calvin, Vitringa, Riickert, Hengstenberg, Hiivernick. Jerome 
 says: “Iste asperget gentes multas, mundans eas sanguine 
 suo.” Compare 1 Pet. 1. 2: “Sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
 Christ ;” Heb. xi. 24: “The blood of sprinkling.” See also Ezek. 
 xxxvil. 25: “ Then will I sprinkle (prt) clean water upon you, 
 and ye shall be clean.’ —0°21 DN3] many nations; the O31 
 answering to the many of verse 14. ---- ὩΠῚΒ =r) IEP" yey] 
 kings shall shut their mouths at Him: in token of deep reve- 
 rence ; the figure denotes the awe-inspiring power of Christ ; 
 compare Job xxix. 9,10, 11: “ The princes refrained talking, 
 and laid their hand on their mouth,” etc. Micah vii. 16: 
 “The nations shall see and be confounded; they shall lay their 
 hand wpon their mouth,” WEP’, 3 plur. mas. fut. Kal of 72?. See 
 
 Job v.13; Ps. cvii. 42, —387 ond ἼΒΘ ΝΡ rw "51 for that which 
 
 had not been told them shall they see; 15D 3 sing. mas. pret. Pual 
 of 75D (xxii. 10, xxxiii. 18, xliii, 21, 26). The words have 
 been taken as meaning: “ what they thought an impossibility, 
 they shall know to have taken place,” Martini, referring the 
 words to the restoration of the exiles. But the plain gram- 
 matical sense and application is that which St. Paul gives 
 when he quotes the words with reference to the preaching of 
 the gospel. What had been hid from ages and generations, 
 though announced to the Jews by the prophets, would be made 
 known to the nations. Jerome (J.c.) says: “ Principes seculi, qui 
 non habuerunt legem et prophetas, et quibus de eo non fuerat 
 nuntiatum, ipsi videbunt et intelligent. In quorum compara- 
 tione Judworum duritia reprehenditur, qui videntes et audientes 
 save in se vaticinium compleverunt vi. 9, 10.” — syow-n> TWN? 
 322527] and that which they had not heard shall they understand. 
 — vr’ 3 plur. pret. Kal of yor. Here again is implied the 
 difference between the Jews who hearing could not under- 
 stand, and the Gentiles who heard not before but entertain 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 105 
 
 the tidings when brought. Paul quotes this prophecy in 
 explanation of his “being careful to preach the gospel, not 
 where Christ was previously named.” See Rom. x. 17—20. 
 9213n7, 3 plur. pret. Hiphpolel of 1'3, to understand (vi. 9, 10, 
 πεῖν 16, xxvii 9, xx. 4, xl 14, 21, xiii: 10, 18, xliv.-8) ; 
 compare especially i. 3: “ My people doth not consider.” In the 
 truths and triumphs of the cross, they shall behold and ponder 
 with adoring reverence what the wisdom of man could never 
 have told, what the heart of man could never have conceived, 
 1 Cor. ii. 7-10. 
 
 CHAPTER 1111]. 
 
 The prophet now is about to tell how the Divine Servant 
 was to be brought to the lowest depth of suffering, and to 
 death itself, in order to the salvation of God’s people, and how 
 He would be raised to the highest pitch of honour and glory ; 
 events so strange and so contrary to human sense and expec- 
 tation, that they would be believed beforehand by only very 
 few. He thus brings out fully at the outset the contrast 
 between the Gentiles who should see and consider, and the 
 Jews who hearing would not believe. “ He came unto His own, 
 and His own received Him not.” 
 
 This chapter has won the devout admiration of all who 
 have written upon it. One calls it, “Mel cali, medulla 
 evangelii, or the prophet Isaiah’s crucifix, giving out the hot 
 bright beams of God’s great love, setting Christ apart to a 
 cursed and bitter Passion, for Man’s blessed and sweet 
 Redemption.” Another exclaims: “ Nobilissima prophetiarum ! 
 hie merum evangelium est.” “This chapter,” says a third, “is 
 so replenished with the unsearchable riches of Christ, that it 
 may be called the Gospel of the Evangelist Isaiah.” “ Splendet 
 hee prophetia instar lucis in obscwro loco; qui in hac luce 
 ambulat non impinget,”? is the concluding observation of 
 Vitringa, who regards the chapter as a CHorus Apostolorwim et 
 Ministrorum Verbi Gratic. 
 
106 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 VERSE 1. 
 yoy TIM ΣΡ) woyew? paxt vp 
 723 
 
 LXX.: Κύριος, tis ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν ; καὶ ὁ βραχίων 
 Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη ; F 
 
 VULGATE: Quis credidit auditui nostro ? et. brachium Domini 
 cur revelatum est ? 
 
 John xii. 37, 38: Though He had done so many miracles 
 before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of 
 Esaias the prophet might be ee which he spake, Κύριε, τίς 
 ἐπίστευσε TH ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν ; ; καὶ ὁ βραχίων ia τίνι ἀπεκα- 
 λύφθη; 
 
 Rom. x. 16 : But they have not all obeyed the Gospel : Sor 
 Esaias saith, Κύριε, tis ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; 
 
 The LXX. prefix Κύριε, regarding which Jerome remarks : 
 “ Dominus in Hebreo non habetur, sed pro intelligentia persone 
 ad quam dicitur, additum est.” — ΠΡΌ PONT] Who hath 
 believed our report? The first question is, Who is the speaker? 
 who are we to understand by owr ? Luther, Calvin, and most 
 expositors, down to Gesenius and Stier, reply, the prophet, 
 speaking for himself alone, and of the message which he was 
 about to utter, or speaking for himself in common with other 
 prophets. Delitzsch takes it to be Israel collectively, because 
 the pronouns which occur later on clearly denote the people. 
 But it is not necessary to suppose that the owr of verse 1 
 must be the same with the we and our of the following. No 
 doubt, in both the prophet is included ; he is foremost among 
 the owr or we throughout; but in verse 1 he unites with 
 himself in the plural not all the people, but only those who 
 were teachers and proclaimers of the truth with him. — 287, 
 3 sing. mas. pret. Hiphil of j28 (Hiph. vii. 9, xxviil. 16, xiii. 
 10). There are three words used in Scripture for trusting or 
 believing, viz. M2 in Kal (Isa. xii. 2, xxvi. 4, xxx. 12, 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 1. 107 
 
 xxxi. 1, xxxvi. 4-9, ΧΙ. 17, xlvii, 10, 1. 10), 700 in Kal 
 (xiv. 32, xxx. 2, lvii. 13), and 28 in Hiphil. Πείθω and 
 ἐλπίζω are used in the LXX. for the first two, πιστεύω for 
 the third. — ΠΡΟΣ] The prep. ?, the 1 plur. pron. suffix 
 with Mypv, fem. of the passive part. Kal of yov. It occurs in 
 Isa. xxviii. 9,19, xxxvil. 7 ; see also Obad. 1: “ We have heard 
 a rumour from the Lord ;” rendered tidings, 1 Sam. iv. 19 ; 
 2 Sam. iv. 4, xiii. 30; Ps. exii. 7; news, Prov. xxv. 25. It 
 denotes the prophetic announcement, as is evident from the 
 use St. Paul makes of the passage, Rom. x. 16: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
 πάντες ὑπήκουσαν TO εὐαγγελίῳ: ‘Haaias yap λέγει, Κύριε τίς 
 ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; If the passive meaning be empha- 
 sized, it might denote, as some think, the hearing of the message 
 from God on the prophet’s part,—Who hath believed what we 
 have heard? Cf. 1. 15. But the usage of the word elsewhere 
 does not warrant such an emphasis. The connection of the | 
 quotation in Rom. x. might lead to the belief that the report 
 or tidings were those referred to in 11], 7, and these are the 
 tidings so far as they include the revelation of chapter lui., 
 so far as the suffering, the death, the resurrection, and the 
 exaltation of the Divine Servant constitute and guarantee the 
 clad tidings. Hendewerk takes the question to imply that 
 no one, not even the Servant himself, believed, according to 
 xlii, 19; but Hengstenberg and others rightly regard the 
 implied negation as not absolute, but as denoting the paucity 
 of believers. Dr. S. Harris, in his curious and suggestive 
 Essay on this chapter (A.D. 1735), says: “I conceive the prophet, 
 having in his mind the wonderfulness of the sacred person he 
 was to speak of, begins his prophecy by putting a hard 
 question, to which he intended to give a solution. He must 
 be understood therefore to say, Come, Ill teach any man how 
 he shall believe it; I'll give you such sure marks of His 
 person that shall make it appear that to the Jews He shall 
 become a stumbling-block, and be rejected of them; and yet 
 that no impartial person in after times, when this great event 
 shall have come to pass, shall be able to disbelieve it, if he 
 
108 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 makes a sufficient use of his reason.” He refers to Eccles. 
 vi. 10, which he renders: “ What is that which exists but for 
 a moment? It has been named by thousands; ’tis known 
 what it is—it is man.” This he calls “the ancient method 
 of propounding important points by way of question ;” see 
 1 Kings x. 1. Although this cannot be accepted as an 
 adequate explanation, there is no doubt that our prophet often 
 adopts the interrogatory method to arouse attention to 
 what he is going to say. The habit of a double question, 
 moreover, runs throughout the Book of Isaiah. The use of 
 the question, be it dramatic or emphatic simply, occurs in 
 the earlier chapters: i. 5, 11, 12, iii. 15, v. 4, vi 8, x. 3, 9, 
 11: D5) xiv NO i 1D DD xii, Soh δ aa 
 XXvilil. 9, 24, xxxiii. 14; and in the later prophecies: xl. 12, 
 18;°21, 25,°28) xis 2, οι τ ΟΣ ΠΕ shiv 8 ely 
 10; 21,'xlvi. 5 ’xlix, 245401, 785910), 1.9, dys 2s ea ae 
 vi. 3,5, ΠΣ χα 155: Iaiv12, lxvo 11 lo, va, 
 mim yin] and the arm of the Lord. This expression reminds 
 us of li. 10: “ The Lord hath made bare His holy arm in the 
 eyes of all the nations.” God's arm denotes His power either 
 to attack or to defend. Hendewerk argues that God’s hand 
 denotes a gracious exercise of power (xli. 20, xlv. 11, 12, 
 xviii. 13, xlix. 2, 22, lix. 1), but His arm hostility (xl. 10, 
 lii. 10, lix. 16, lxiii. 5); but xl. 11, “ He shall gather the lambs 
 in His arm ;” 11. 5: “On mine arm shall they trust ;” lix. 16, 
 lxili. 5: “ Mine arm brought salvation,” show that the arm of the 
 Lord denotes strength for defence likewise ; while in ix. 11, 20, 
 x. 4, xix. 16, xxv. 10, 11. 17, God’s hand refers to punishment. 
 Harris takes the expression to denote a person, viz. the 
 Messiah described in verse 2. In lxiii. 12, our Saviour, he 
 says, is expressly called the arm of the Father’s glory, agree- 
 ably to St. Paul’s word, δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. 1. 24. 
 Vitringa takes it more properly as Doctrina Christi, agreeably 
 to Rom. i. 16: εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ" δύναμις yap Θεοῦ ἐστιν 
 εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. --- mno33 nn Ὁ} to whom hath 
 it been revealed ? — nnn, 3 sing. fem. pret. Niphal of nda, to make 
 
 - 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 2. 109 
 
 naked, to reveal ; see xxii. 14, xxiii. 1, xxxyvii. 12, xl. 5, xlvii. 
 2, 3, lvi. 1, lvii. 8. The ὃν is supposed by some to imply that 
 the revelation comes from above; Hitzig takes it to imply the 
 uplifting of the arm; it rather stands for ON, or simply ?, to 
 whom. The whole clause and figure may be taken as synony- 
 mous with the first clause ; yet this latter clause may refer to 
 facts or works, as the first does to words. Cf. John xii, BG 
 38: “Though He had done so many miracles before them, yet 
 they believed not on Him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet 
 might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our 
 report ? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ?” 
 Calvin says that in the second part of the verse the prophet 
 gives the cause of the first; they have not believed because 
 the arm was not revealed. Rather the gospel of Christ is the 
 arm of the Lord; “ J¢ is the power, δύναμις, of God,’ Rom. i. 
 16; “ The word of God is quick and powerful,” Heb. iv. 12. 
 “Fewness of believers in the gospel of Christ, hath in all 
 ages turned preachers into complainers. God’s arm must go 
 along with the minister's mouth,” Calvert. See 1 Cor. 1. 
 23, 24. 
 
 VERSE 2. 
 ms yw baba re? pina ὍΣΣ 
 ANSTITN?) TANT) TTT ON?) 52 NTN? 
 RCIA) 
 
 LXX.: "AvnyyeiAapev (Aq. Theod.: ἀναβήσεται, Symm. : 
 ἀνέβη) ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ ὡς παιδίον, ὡς ῥίζα ἐν γῇ Supaon οὐκ 
 ἔστιν εἶδος αὐτῷ οὐδὲ δόξα. Καὶ εἴδομεν αὐτόν, καὶ οὐκ εἶχεν 
 εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος (Symm.: οὐκ εἶδος αὐτῷ, οὐδὲ ἀξίωμα, ἵνα 
 εἰδῶμεν αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ θεωρία, ἵνα ἐπιθυμήσωμεν αὐτόν). 
 
 VuLGATE: Et ascendet sicut virgultum coram eo, et sicut 
 radix de terra sitienti ; non est species οἱ neque decor, et vidimus 
 eum, et non erat aspectus, et desideravimus eum. 
 
 23] For He grew up. The} is causative and conversive; the 
 
119 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 verb is 3 sing. mas. fut. Kal of πον, to go up, often used of plants, 
 e.g. Gen. xl. 10: “ Her blossoms shot forth ;” xli. 5, 22: “Seven ears 
 of corn came up” (xlix. 9, figuratively of Judah); Deut. xxix. 
 22; Job v. 26; Prov. xxiv. 31; hence ney, a leaf ; so often in 
 Isaiah (v. 6, 24, xxxii. 13, lv. 13 (twice)). — p2*2] as a tender 
 plant, P31', suckling, act. part. of Ὁ", to suck ; xi. 8 : “ The sucking 
 child ;” Ps. viii. 2 : “ Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings ;” 
 the verb, xlix. 23, lx. 16, Ixvi. 12. When used of a plant or 
 sucker, oftener Np, Job viii. 16, xiv. 7, xv. 30; Ps. Ixxx. 
 12; Ezek. xvii. 4, 22; Hos. xiv. 6. In Arabic the word 
 
 ἐ ,#\ is similarly used to denote the young alike of plants 
 
 and animals; and so among the Greeks, κάρπος, θάλος, κλάδος 
 (Symm.) are used with reference to children and offspring. 
 The birth and early growth of the Servant is here likened to 
 the gradual springing and growth of a sucker from the root or 
 stump, after the proud cedar (Ezek. xvii. 22) of the Davidic 
 monarchy had been felled. The same comparison occurs in 
 ἘΠ tole — 2B? ] before Him, 1.6. Jehovah; the suffix is singular, 
 the noun plural, not used in the sing. Lowth, Henderson, and 
 Alexander take it to mean the Jewish people collectively, 
 because it was not in God’s sight that the Messiah was as a 
 sucker or shoot, but in that of the people. But the figure is 
 not intended to describe a feeling or estimate, but a fact—the 
 lowly birth and youth of the Servant ; and thus He was born, 
 thus He grew before the Lord. All took place mm spb, in 
 His presence and under His care and government, ἐνωπίον 
 τοῦ Ocod. —WiW2)] and as a root. This is the true meaning 
 of the word,-and we need not supplant it by shoot. Isaiah 
 often uses it ; v. 24: “ Their root shall be as rottenness ;” xi. 1 : 
 «4 Branch shall grow out of his roots ;” 10: “ A root of Jesse ;” 
 xiv. 29, 30, xxvii. 6: “ He shall cause them that come of Jacob to 
 take root ;” xxxvil. 81: “ Judah shall take root ;” xl. 24: “ Their 
 stock shall not take root in the earth.’ Abenesra finely says: 
 mp im νον Say κοῦ, Cf Rev. v.5: ῥίζα Aavid. As descended 
 from David, He was a Branch ; as the second Adam, He became 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 2. ὙΠ 
 
 the root. “1 am the vine, ye are the branches.” —™8 YS] 
 out of a dry ground. ™¥, drought, xxxv. 1, xli. 18; cf. Ps. 
 Ix. 1, οὐ. 35. Some have explained this as denoting 
 Bethlehem, or the family of Mary, or the Virgin’s womb. So 
 says Theodotus, Opp. 11. 358, ed. Hal. “Ὡς ῥίζα ἐν γῇ διψώσῃ: 
 κατὰ δὲ τὸν “Axvray, ἡ ῥίζα ἀπὸ γῆς ἀβάτου προείπομεν φήσι 
 τῆν ἐκ παρθένου γέννησιν αὐτὴν γὰρ ἀβάτον καὶ δυψώσαν προ- 
 σηγόρευσεν, ὡς ἴχνος ἀνδρὸς καὶ γαμικὸν ὑετὸν οὐδαμῶς δεξα- 
 μένην. Martini far more appropriately says: “ Referendam 
 esse ad aspectum parum gratum nihilque oblectationis preebentem, 
 Le. ad statum vilem atque abjectum,’ as the prophet himself 
 shows in the following words. Harris would render this: from 
 the land of Zion, from Mount Zion. - i awh NP] He hath no 
 form, no form to Him, see 111. 14. Cf. Gen. xxix. 17: “Rachel 
 was fair of form ;? xxxix. 6: “Joseph was a goodly person ;” 
 1 Sam. xvi. 18: “David, a comely person.” — ὙΠ ὯΙ nor come- 
 liness, 1]. 10, 14, 21: “Hor the glory of His majesty;” v. 14: 
 “ glory ;” xxxv. 2: “The eacellency of Carmel, the eacellency of our 
 God.” Cf. Ps. cx. 3: “The beauty of holiness.” Also 770, 
 ΠΤ txvie 29'3( 2) Chrom xx. 12s Po. xxix. a REVI ἢ. 
 In ὙΠ there is also the idea of splendour or majesty, and 
 Henderson réfers the word to the pomp of regal state. No 
 such majesty marked the Messiah. The two words occur 
 together, Gen. xxix. 17; 1 Sam. xxv. 31. Harris observes 
 that the words do not describe the person of Jesus as ill- 
 favoured. He takes the reference to be to the glory ("ΠῚ of 
 the Lord in the cloud which rested on the tabernacle of 
 witness, and which was light to Israel, and to their enemies 
 darkness. Christ is the true witness, all glorious within, 
 though without the brightness and glory to those without. 
 —‘81))] that we should regard Him, 1 plur. fut. Kal of 7s, 
 to see, with 3 sing. mas. pron. suffix. Vitringa, Martini, and 
 Henderson transpose the athnach from 177 to this word, thus 
 joining it with what precedes, and forming the parallel thus : 
 FANT TT ND) §> INA NP 
 sae BIEN He 
 
112 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 Thus Symmachus “elegantissimus interpres” renders: οὐκ 
 εἶδος αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ἀξίωμα, ἵνα εἴδωμεν αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ θεωρία, ἵνα 
 ἐπιθυμῶμεν αὐτόν. The prefix 1 in both members would thus 
 have the force of the Latin τέ, as in li. 12, MOND NTA AND: 
 “ Who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man?” and 
 xxvi. 2 : “ Open the gates that.” Luther, Lowth, Alexander, and 
 Delitzsch adhere to the Masoretic punctuation, because of 
 the supposed play upon the words ANN WN, which are 
 thought to stand in close reciprocal connection, and because 
 the verb 781 means to view with pleasure only when followed 
 by the preposition 3, so that we should expect 13 7872) instead 
 of 37892. But in Prov. xxii. 31 the idea of looking with 
 pleasure is expressed by the verb without 3, and Martini 
 observes: “ Illud verbulo notandum, v. 787, ἢ. 1. emphatice 
 
 5 
 positum esse pro videre cum delectatione, quo sensu δὐϊαπι., οἷ; 
 
 apud Arabes et Syriacum Wyss seeplus usurpari norunt eruditi.” 
 
 Nor is there any significant play of words or connection 
 between 3787) and 787; this latter word corresponds rather 
 with 8A, as both similarly occur in 11. 14. Henderson 
 accordingly renders the clause: “ Vo form, no beauty, that we 
 should regard Him ; no comeliness, that we should desire Him.” 
 — ANON] and no beauty. 8, est adspectus, sive active 
 sumatur, sive passive ut v. ὁ. Gen. xxiv. 16, Dan. 1. 4, sic 
 hoc loco, valetque idem quod 78h, — 77] that we should 
 desire Him, 1 plur. fut. Kal of 7M, to desire or covet, 1. 29, 
 ii, 16, xxxil. 12, xliv. 9 : “ their delectable things.” The Syriac 
 
 . 0 n y , . . . 
 version reads: TLL 14 20, idcirco eum repudiavimus ; the 
 
 translator, hitting upon the correct arrangement, evidently 
 thought that xb was to be supplied, according to the analogy 
 of the preceding clause. In Hag. ii. 7 the Messiah is called 
 pisn-P3 nin; but the Jews failed to see in Jesus anything to 
 be desired, and therefore rejected Him as the Messiah. “The 
 mean and base appearance of Christ hath been the world’s 
 great stumbling-block. His doctrine was against all worldly 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 3. 115 
 
 glory and pompous visibility, against the splendours and titles 
 of Pharisees and high priests, teaching to deny the world, 
 and to deny ourselves,” Calvert. 
 
 VERSE 3. 
 sO) MAND WS OWN 2M 7133 
 MAW NP) TD) wg OE Woz 7H 
 
 LXX.: ᾿Αλλὰ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἄτιμον Kal ἐκλεῖπον Tapa πάντας 
 ἀνθρώπους" ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῇ ὧν καὶ εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν, 
 ὅτε ἀπέστραπται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, ἠτιμάσθη, καὶ οὐκ 
 ἐλογίσθη. 
 
 VULGATE : Despectum et novissimum virorum, virum dolorum 
 et scientem infirmitatem ; et quast absconditus vultus eus et 
 despectus, unde nec reputavimus ewm. Compare Mark ix. 12: 
 Καὶ πῶς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ 
 καὶ ἐξουδενωθῇ. John xix. 5: "Ide ὁ ἄνθρωπος. 
 
 m3] He was despised, Niphal part. of ΠῚΞ 
 
 tT? 
 
 to despise. The 
 word occurs xxxvii. 22: “ Hath despised thee;” xlix. 7: “Him 
 whom man despiseth” (βου ΠΡ). Cf. Ps. xxii. 7: DYNA, “despised 
 of the people;” Symm.: ἐξουδενωμένος. ---- DW ΠῚ] and rejected 
 ‘of men. There has been much difference of opinion as to the 
 rendering of this phrase. an is a verbal adj. from the verb 
 ban, to leave off, to cease, Judg. ix. 9, 11, 13; Job iii. 17: 
 “There the wicked cease ;” xix. 14: “My kinsfolk have failed ;” Ps. 
 xxxvl. 3: “He hath left off to be wise.” It occurs in Isa.i. 16: 
 “Cease to do evil ;” 11. 22: “Cease ye from man ;” xxiv. 8: “The 
 noise endeth;” hence the LXX.: ἐκλεῖπον. Martini observes 
 concerning the rendering, desertus ab hominibus: “Contra morem 
 Hebreorum poetarum, qui ita verba synonyma conjyungere amant, 
 ut posterius priort paulo sit gravius et fortius.’ He therefore 
 renders it: “Qui υἱῷ inter homines referendus, ne nomine 
 quidem hominis dignus videtur h. pro vilissimo atque abject- 
 issimo, quemadmodum affini formula ὮΝ NX> Deut. xxxii, 21, 
 H 
 
114 COMMENTARY ON ISATAH. 
 
 est ‘gens contemtissima, on? N?, Isa. lv. 2, panis hoc nomine 
 non dignus, h. e. VILIS.” Abenesra explains it: py awnnd Sn 
 prvi, “ He ceased to be reckoned; with men ;” the word is used 
 in Ps, xxxix. 5: “38 DINAN, “ How frail I am ;” see also Isa. 
 xxxviii, 11: “Among the deceased.” But here the parallel 
 obliges the more positive rendering forsaken, one with whom 
 men ceased to have to do, 1.6. = OND, to reject. Symm.: ἐλά- 
 χίστος ἀνδρῶν. Henderson associates with the word the 
 idea of contempt or abhorrence. — OWN is, according to 
 Delitzsch, to be taken as synonymous not with o4x~33, but 
 with ws723, denoting persons of rank; see Proy. viii. 4, Ps. 
 cexli. 4, where alone elsewhere this plural occurs (but where 
 the idea of rank is not necessarily expressed). Hence 
 Cocceius renders it: “ wanting in men, having no respectable 
 men with Him,” and hence the Vulgate “ novissimum virorum,” 
 the last, one who takes the last place. Vitringa, whom 
 Delitzsch follows, interprets: “ Nullos secum habebat viros 
 spectabiles, quorum auctoritate fulciretur.” This is a poor and 
 weak idea after the 133, and it is not confirmed by the appli- 
 cation of the word WS, immediately after, to the sufferer. 
 Martini’s view, sanctioning our English version, commends 
 itself when he says: “ Vocabulum D'S vero, quod non minus 
 ad nr quam ad $1n referendum putamus, eo pertinet, ut gradu 
 superlativo ‘ contemtissimus, aljectissimusque’ designetur.” So 
 Prov., xv. 20; DIS DDS is rendered by Schnurrer (diss. 118): 
 “ Filius sapiens letificat patrem, at filius spernens matrem stul- 
 tissimus est.” The LXX. refer the words back to the 181 of 
 verse 2; τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἄτιμον καὶ ἐκλεῖπον Tapa πάντας 
 ἀνθρώπους. ---- ΤΥ ΝΒ WS] a man of sorrows; — WS, without 
 any idea of rank or dignity. —N3X29, pains, sorrows, from A182, 
 to have pain, or to be sore, hence, figuratively, to be sorrowful ; 
 Prov. xiv. 13: “ Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful ;” Ps. 
 Ixix. 30: “I am poor and sorrowful ;” 383, Isa, xvii. 11: “ The 
 day of grief and of desperate sorrow ;” Ιχν. 14: “ Ye shall ery 
 for sorrow of heart ;” Lam, 1. 12: “See of there be any sorrow 
 (3IN212) like unto my sorrow.” (Aq.: ἄνδρα ἀλγηδόνων ; Symm. : 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 3. 115 
 
 avnp ἐπίπονος.) — ἢ ῬΥΤ] and acquainted with grief; 7, 
 pass. part. Kal of YT, rendered known, Deut. i. 13, 15. Hence 
 some render: “ Known to -grief.’” Martini: “ PLAGIS INSIG- 
 NITER NOTATUS. Scdlicet cum yy per se sit NOTUS, nobilis, 
 insignis (vid. Deut. 1. 14, e¢ cognatum, yma, Isa. lxi. 2), hine 
 bm nt, esse nobis videtur, qui tanta malorum acerbissimorum 
 gravissimarumque calamitatum mole, obrutus est, ut insigne 
 exemplum exstet hominis afflictissimi.” Symm.: γνωστὸς νόσῳ ; 
 Theod.: γνωστὸς μαλακίᾳ; Chaldee: ἡγοῦ yon. “ Convenit 
 quodammodo formula, Luc. ii. 34: σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον, 
 exemplum sive monumentum insigne hominis ignominia in- 
 Jurvisque affect.” The LXX., Vulgate, and Peshito seem to 
 read Yi, the active part. knowing, εἰδώς, sciens, which some 
 codices have. But Hengstenberg and Delitzsch claim for the 
 word, as it stands, a deponent sense; and Henderson justly 
 observes that in Deut. i. 13, 15, OYT is manifestly synony- 
 mous with bryan DIN, men wise, understanding and knowing, 
 or skilful. Gesenius, too, remarks that the passive part. has 
 not unfrequently an active signification, especially when it 
 belongs to an intransitive verb. Thus, like the Latin deponent 
 forms, "8 means holding, not held, Song iii. 8 ; M3, trusting, 
 not trusted, Ps. exii. 7; δ, inhabiting, not inhabited ; Gram. 
 sec. 50, — ‘Sh in pause, for ὑπ, sickness, Deut. vii. 15, xxviii. 
 59, 61; Ps. xli 3; Isa. i. 5: “ The whole head is sick,” figura- 
 tively. The verb in Isa. xxxviii. 1, 9, xxxix. 1, lvii. 10: 
 “Thou wast not grieved,’ xvii. 11; see verses 4 and 10. 
 These, according to Harris, should be regarded not as real 
 characters of our Saviour, but mere abuses of the Jews, 
 opprobrious epithets, slanders which they spoke concerning 
 Him. But they were fulfilled in the bitter cup of suffering 
 which He drank. — 322 0.5 1nd] And there was, as it 
 were, the hiding of the face from Him. The } is here, accord- 
 ing to Henderson, to be taken ἐκβατικῶς ; and the 3 is the 
 caph veritatis, He renders: “So that there was a hiding of 
 face from Him.” Lowth, de Wette, and others render: “ He 
 was like one hiding His face from us,’ 332 being either the 
 
116 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 1 plur. or 3 sing. mas. But there is no sanction for the latter 
 rendering in the totally different phrase ppiy-Py ΠῸΝ, the covering 
 of the beard or chin by lepers (Lev. xiii. 45), or by mourners 
 (Ezek. xxiv. 17), or as expressive of shame (Micah iii. 7). 
 Gesenius renders it: “ As one from whom they hide the face,” 
 taking the 3 for 83, and 1D) as the participle Hiphil for | 
 ὝΠΟ. The verb 1D occurs as follows in Isaiah ; viii. 17: “I 
 will wait upon the Lord, that hideth His face from the house 
 of Jacob,” 3py) Ma YB Wd; here the Hiphil part. occurs 
 with a similar construction; xvi. 3, xxviii. 15, xxix. 15, xl. 27, 
 xlv. 15, xlix. 2,1. 6: “17 hid not my face from Ὁ ‘MADD xb "2B, 
 shame and spitting,’—a statement which, as applied to the suf- 
 fering Servant, would contradict the rendering, “He hid His face 
 from us;” liv. ὃ: “I hid my face from you,’ 722 5 MAD ; 
 lix. 2: “Your sins have caused Him to hide His face from you,” 
 bao oa ADT; Ixiv. 7: “For Thou hast hid Thy face from 
 us,” 3322 PID MIDI “3: lxv. 16. These passages show that 
 the expression in the Hiphil, “to hide the face,” is frequent 
 in Isaiah, and that this hiding of the face denotes displeasure. 
 Indeed, the whole passage is describing not so much the 
 Divine Servant’s conduct towards the people, as the people’s 
 estimation of Him. Vitringa inserts MS before ADD, and 
 renders: “Quisque faciem ab eo occultabit.” Martini takes 
 TAD as a substantive, and so do Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Ewald 
 (Gr. § 160. 3), Knobel, Delitzsch. Thus taking the word, the 
 translation would be: “And there was, as τέ were, the hiding 
 of the face from Him.” This seems to come nearest to the 
 prophet’s thought ; but it must be remembered that the ex- 
 pression, hiding of the face, denotes in Scripture an act on 
 God’s part, not on man’s,—an act indicating His displeasure 
 (eg. Ps. xxx. 7, xiii, 1, xxvii. 9, cii. 2), and standing in 
 antithesis to the 18 8” of Num. vi. 26: “ The Lord lift up 
 His countenance upon thee ;” cf. Ps. iv. 6, xlii. 5, Ixxxix. 15. 
 We might therefore render, And as one from whom Giod hides 
 His face, or, And as causing the hiding of God's face from 
 Him, answering to the smitten of God in the following verse. 
 
 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 3. ΤΊ 
 
 The words closely resemble what we find put negatively in 
 Ps, xxii. 24 (25): “ He hath not despised nor abhorred the 
 affliction of the afflicted, neither hath He hid His face from 
 him,’ and they were realized when the cry of verse 1 of 
 that Psalm escaped the dying Saviour’s lips. 
 
 7123] He was despised. Gesenius and Hengstenberg take 
 this as the 1 plur. fut., we despised Him, and in this. they 
 adopt the suggestion of Martini, who, urging the mistakes to 
 which a transcriber is liable in the division of words, suggests 
 that the 1 following originally was the third pronominal suffix 
 attached to the verb, and that it once ran thus; 37322vn ND wd ; 
 and this he finds confirmed by the Syriac. It is, however, 
 quite in Isaiah’s manner to repeat the word, and it is simplest 
 to take it as identical with that in the beginning of the 
 verse. 
 
 ὙΠΟ ΝΟ] And we esteemed Him not; Kal 1 plur. pret. 
 of Wn, which occurs in ii. 22, v. 28, x. ἢ. xiii. 17, xxix. 16, 
 17, xxxii. 15, xxxiii. 8, xl. 15, 16; and besides this third 
 verse, in verse 4. The word §) may be taken either as a 
 simple negative or as a substantival, to denote that which is 
 of no worth, as in Job vi. 21, > DIT, “ ye are nothing,’ xi. 11. 
 Martini prefers the latter, and renders : “ Nihilique reputavimus.” 
 Hebrew writers are wont thus to put more strongly nega- 
 tively what they had before expressed positively. Theod. : 
 οὐκ ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτόν. The use of this verb in the sense of 
 to reckon, to impute, is very significant, as indicating the O. T. 
 ideas concerning forgiveness and justification. We have it in 
 that text upon which St. Paul bases his argument in Rom. 
 iv., Gen. xv. 6: “ He counted it to him for righteousness ;” 
 also in Lev. xvi. 4: “Blood shall be imputed unto that 
 man ;” in 2 Sam. xix. 19: “ Let not my lord impute iniquity 
 unto me ;” and in Ps. xxxii. 2, as parallel with δε) and ADS: 
 “Unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity.” See verses 
 ti, 12, 
 
118 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 VERSE 4. 
 D220 AND NY) NT ANT JAN 
 gre OTS M22 399) Taw TI) 
 
 LXX.: Οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν 
 ὀδυνᾶται καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν 
 πληγῇ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐν κακώσει. 
 
 VULGATE: Vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros 
 apse portavit, et nos putavimus ewm quasi leprosum et percussum 
 a Deo et humiliatum. 
 
 The prophet now goes on to describe the reason of the 
 humiliation and sufferings of Jehovah’s Servant. This and 
 the three following verses contain the central doctrine of the 
 Christian religion, the expiation of human guilt by the 
 vicarious sufferings of the Divine Servant. “Servwm Dei 
 justum, hie emphatice sin dictum, cum tpse nocens non esset, sed 
 scelere et vitio omni purus, in illis probris, doloribus, laboribus 
 anime, et acerbis πταθήμασι in MoRTE terminatis, que patienter 
 sustinuit, tulisse PHNAM VICARIAM eorum peccatorum et cri- 
 minum, gue non a se sed a semine electo toto commissa erant ; 
 tanquam gui volens lubensque secundum Legem sponsionis a se 
 susceptcee INSTAR HOSTLH PIACULARIS ipsis fuerit substitutus ex 
 ordine consilii et Providentie Divine. Hee summa est doctrine 
 gratic, consensu. Scripture totius confirmata, sed proesertim in 
 Libris N. T. clare expostta.”  WVitringa in Joe. . 
 
 13] Surely. Affirming strongly, and sometimes with an 
 adversative force, but, yet. In xlix. 4 our translators have 
 combined both, yet surely. In Gen. xxviii. 16 it is clearly 
 affirmative : “ Surely the Lord is in this place ;” so in Ex. ii. 14: 
 “Surely the thing is known;” and in Jer. viii. 8: “Zo, 
 certainly.” In Ps. xxxi. 23 it is rendered nevertheless ; yet 
 even here it has the form of a strong affirmation, yet surely. So 
 in Isa. xl. 7: “ Surely the people is grass ;” xlv. 15: “ Verily 
 Thou art a God.’ The affirmatory element is prominent 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 4. 119 
 
 wherever the word occurs, and it therefore should be retained 
 here. The rendering swrely is most accurate and appropriate, 
 for our word swrely carries with it often an adversative force. 
 — 3090] our griefs, for "Sn, the plural, which is found in 
 11 mss. and 17 Vss, the same word as in verse 3: 
 “ Acquainted with grief ;” the word does not mean sin, but 
 the evils that sin has brought. The pronominal suffix is 
 emphatic, and stands in contrast with the following sin.— 
 xv] 817] He hath borne. The pronoun is emphatic; in the 
 LXX. οὗτος: in the Vulgate, ipse, himself; see Matt. viii. 177. 
 xb, 3 sing. mas. pret. Kal, to lift up, to bear; see Ex. xxviii 
 12, 29, 30, 38: “Aaron shall bear the names, the iniquity ;” 
 Ley. v. 1, 17, xvi. 22: “ The goat shall bear their iniquities ;” 
 xvii. 6; Ps. xxxil. 5: “ Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin, 
 didst bear away;” so Ps. Ixxxy. 2, and so verse 12. In 
 Isaiah the word often occurs with the meaning to lift up, eg. 
 xiii. 2, xl. 26, and sometimes ἕο bear, 1. 14: “I am weary to 
 bear them ;” 11.9: “ Forgive them not ;” xl. 11: “ And carry 
 them in His bosom ;” xli. 16: “ The wind shall carry them 
 away ;” xlvi. 4, 7, lvii. 13, lxiv.6. The prophet’s meaning 
 here evidently is: “ He hath borne as a burden put upon Hin, 
 as a man acquainted with grief, our griefs.” See verse 12. 
 In Matt. viii. 17 the words are applied to Jesus as the bearer 
 away of griefs. “He healed all that were sick, that it might 
 be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 
 Αὐτὸς tas ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε καὶ tas νόσους ἐβάστασεν." 
 No one supposes that the prophet means here that the Servant 
 healed the bodily sicknesses of the people; nor did the evan- 
 gelist mean that the healing miracles of Christ exhausted the 
 prophecy which he quotes. He simply takes the prophetic 
 words ovSn and p’2x2n in their lower sense as denoting bodily 
 sicknesses, and shows how, even in this sense, the prophet’s 
 words were fulfilled by Jesus. But the prophet’s words 
 cannot be narrowed to this alone. They expressly affirm 
 not only the removal, but the substitutionary bearing (Nv, 
 Sap) of the burdens. “Non tantwm tulisse sed et BAJULASSE,” 
 Ν 
 
120 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 Vitringa. Martini renders: “Pertwlit mala nobis infligenda ;” see 
 Jer. x. 19: “ This is my grief, and I must bear it,” a8BS) on mt, — 
 32.2823] and our sorrows; the pronominal affix again emphatic ; 
 “he, ‘the man of sorrows’ (verse 3), ow sorrows hath carried.” 
 Many codices and versions, including the Vulgate and Syriac, 
 insert the pronoun Ni again after 1.282 ; and Lowth remarks 
 that this gives completeness and adds force and elegance to 
 the expression, making the two members of the parallel 
 exactly correspond. — 8050] He hath carried them, 3 sing. mas. 
 pret. Kal (with 3 plur. pron. suffix) of 530, a word occurring - 
 only three times (Gen. xlix. 15; Ps. exliv. 14; Eccles. xii. 5) 
 in other books, and eight times in Isaiah, viz. Dab, the participle, 
 as a noun, burden, ix. 4, x. 27, xiv. 25; Kal fut, xlvi 4 
 (twice), I will carry, verse 7; and twice in this chapter, 
 see verse 11. The idea clearly is that one bearing as a 
 burden the consequences of the sins of others, see verse 11. 
 The griefs and sorrows which He bore were our due, and 
 belonged to us as the fruit and punishment of our sin. The 
 idea is not merely that He bore griefs and sorrows similar to 
 ours; this would destroy the strong contrast between the owr 
 and the he. “It was our griefs He bare, it was our sorrows He 
 carried,” Henderson. —13728)] yet we, very emphatic, for there 
 is here an antithesis between the first part of the verse, which 
 states the real character and reason of the Servant’s sufferings, 
 and this latter part, which states the people’s estimate of them. 
 On the circumstantial clause with 8i7) as subject, see Driver, 
 sec. 160. The pronoun is doubly expressed, by the 172" 
 
 and by the verbal afformative 35---. ---- ὙΠ) ΠῚ did esteem him, 
 
 1 plur. pret Kal (with 3 sing. mas. pronom. suffix) of 2M, see 
 verse 3,—— $1)] stricken, pass. part. Kal of 2, to touch, see 
 Isa. vi. 7: “ This hath touched thy lips;” 111. 11: “ Touch no 
 unclean thing ;” frequently in Leviticus, of contact with any- 
 thing unclean, v. 2, 3, vii. 19, 21. The noun 32, plague, is 
 used sixty times in Lev. xiii. and xiv. of leprosy. The Piel 
 occurs in Gen. xii. 17: “The Lord plagued Pharaoh ;” and the 
 
CHAPTER LIIT; 4. 19} 
 
 pass. part. Kal, as here, in Ps. lxxiii, 14: “All the day long 
 have I been plagued.” Hence the Vulgate renders leproswm. 
 From this word probably arose the Jewish notion concerning 
 Messiah ben Joseph, that he was to be a leper. See 2 Kings 
 xv. 5, where the word is applied to Uzziah, who was a leper 
 to the day of his death. In Arabic in like manner this 
 
 disease is simply called yuj\, τὸ κάκον. Symm. renders the 
 
 word here ἐν ἁφῇ ὄντα, and Aquila, ἁφημένον ; but ἅπτεσθαι 
 and ἁφή are used of any plague, and upon the whole we are not 
 warranted in our translation to go beyond the general word 
 stricken, as the LXX. render simply ἐν πόνῳ Theodotion : 
 pepactuywpévos, flagellatus, gravissimis cruciatibus affectus, 
 Luke vii. 21.—D‘Dx ΠΕΙῸ] smitten of God. 739, Hophal 
 part. construct from 733, Some mss. read the absolute 73°, 
 which some controversialists of a former age adopted, because 
 they wished to make it DEuUM PERCUSSUM. In some Greek 
 versions DDN has been omitted. The expression, however, 
 is appropriate, for it was the manner of all Eastern nations, 
 when. plague or affliction came, to regard it as inflicted 
 by the gods. . Symm.: πεπληγότα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. See Luke 
 xill. 1; John ix. 2. The verb is used in Hiphil and Hophal 
 chiefly, see Isa. 1.6: “Why will ye be stricken any more?” 
 ΕΝ 24 a xist4 lp eK VI 7 see, Ob, xxxvil. 36,008; 
 ἘΠ EG) tyne 17. Wits 4, Ix. 10; m Job it ἡ: “Satan 
 smote (3%) Job with sore boils.” —3iy\] and afflicted; Pual 
 part. of 73), to humble, to afflict, Isa. xxvii. 2, xxxi. 4, lvii. 
 3, 5, 10, and again in verse 7. Symm.: καὶ τεταπεινωμένον. 
 These last three expressions give the estimate of the Servant’s 
 sufferings by the people. “At nos ipsum reputabimus (statu sc. 
 incredulitatis nostre) non pro leproso, sed pro quasi leproso ; 
 percussum a Deo, like Miriam and Uzziah, deservedly 
 punished ; summe afflictum et subactum, ut nulla amplius de 
 ipso spes superesset,” Vitringa. See Ps. lxix. 27. 
 
123 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 VERSE 5. 
 IOI NIT ywWAaD OPA NIM 
 bens wana) post hayous oN 
 
 LXX.: «Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη (Ag.: βεβηλχωμένος ἀπὸ 
 ἀθεσιῶν ἡμῶν) διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐμαλακίσθη διὰ τὰς 
 ἀνομίας ἡμῶν" παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, τῷ μώλωπι 
 αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν. , 
 
 VuULGATE: Jpse autem vulneratus est propter imiquitates 
 nostras, attritus est propter scelera nostra; disciplina pacis 
 nostra super eum, et livore ejus sanati sumus. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 24: οὗ τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἰάθητε. 
 
 δ] But He; the 1 is adversative, what follows being in 
 antithesis to the latter part of verse 4. The sim is emphatic, 
 αὐτὸς δὲ, apse autem. — >on] was wounded, part. Pual of 
 oon ; Arabic, Us, perforatus est, to pierce ; in Piel, to profane, 
 xxili, 9, ΧΙ. 28; the Poel part. occurs in hl. 9:2 Hath 
 pierced the dragon ;” the adj. 50 is usually rendered slain 
 (xxii. 2, xxxiv. 3, Ixvi. 16); the LXX. render the word 
 ἐτραυματίσθη; Aquila has BeSnrwpévos; the Chaldee, DON ; 
 Syriac, yon; Cocceius, cruciebatur ; Vitringa, perfossus, eruct 
 afizus non uno sed multis vulneribus. Ps. xxii. 17; Zech. 
 xi. 10). 
 
 sw yw] for our transgressions. 2. for 1, lit. a part, then 
 from, out of, ue. origin or cause, eg. Gen. xlix. 12: “ Dark 
 through wine ;” of the instrument, eg. Gen. ix. 11: “ No more 
 destroyed by (Ὁ) the waters of a flood ;” also, because, or on 
 account of, Deut. vii. 7: “ The Lord did not choose you because” 
 (1); Gen. xvi. 10: “It shall not be numbered for multitude” 
 (299); Ex. ii, 23: “They sighed by reason of the bondage” 
 (NIA); Song iii. 8; Ruth 1. 13: “Lt grieveth me much for 
 your sakes” (O3).— ywp signifies to break away from, to 
 rebel, Isa. 1. 2: “ They have rebelled against me ;” to revolt from 
 under a covenant or rule, 2 Kings viii. 22; then to transgress, 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 5. 1233 
 
 Isa. xliii. 27: “ Thine interpreters have transgressed against me.” 
 The noun occurs nearly a hundred times in the O. T., and, 
 with nine exceptions (in Genesis, trespass; Prov. x. 12, 19, 
 xxvii. 13, sin; Job xxxiv. 37, he addeth rebellion [ἢ 
 wwe inNen-y] unto his sin), it is always rendered TRANSGRES- 
 SION. Paul has these words in mind, Rom. iv. 25: “ Who 
 was delivered for our offences.” 
 
 N27] He was bruised, part. Pual from S21, to break in 
 pieces, to crush, Ps. Ixxii. 4: “Shall break in pieces the 
 oppressor ;” Isa. 111. 15: “ Ye beat my people to pieces ;” xix. 
 10: “They shall be broken ;” lvii. 15: “ The contrite, 1.8. 
 crushed, broken in spirit;” the LXX.: ἐμαλακίσθη or μεμαλα- 
 κίσται. No stronger expression could be found in Hebrew 
 to denote severity of suffering, suffering unto death. Matt. 
 xxvi. 37; Luke xxii. 44; Heb. v. 7. Word follows word 
 with increasing strength and weight to express the greatness 
 of the suffering and the completeness of its vicariousness, 
 
 wniziyd] for our iniquities; 5. in its causative sense, the 
 1 person plur. pronom. suffix with the plural of fy, This 
 word occurs 220 times in the O. T., and in all but ten places 
 is translated INIQUITY,—a singularly apt term to express the 
 blending of crime and its guilt, the act and the depravity from 
 which (as a fountain) it springs, which the Hebrew word em- 
 bodies. 
 
 7D12] the chastisement, noun mas. construct, from 7°, to 
 correct or chastise by stripes, see 1 Kings xii. 11, 14: “My 
 father chastised you with whips.” In Isa. viii. 11, xxviii. 26, 
 to instruct. _The noun is frequently rendered instruction in 
 Proverbs, but sometimes chastening. Prov. iii. 11: “ Despise 
 not the chastening of the Lord;” xiii. 24: “He that loveth 
 him chasteneth him betimes;” so in Isa. xxvi. 16: “ Thy 
 chastening was upon them.” Vitringa, pena; Michaelis, casti- 
 gatio. 
 
 ΛΟ] of our peace. Diet is derived from nov’, to be whole 
 (xlii. 19), sownd, safe; in Piel, to render, to perform; Isa. 
 gic oteeaxyill 12, 13, xlivii26, 28. vii. 18, lix. Τ lev. Οἱ 
 
124 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 The noun occurs upwards of 200 times in the O. T., and is 
 almost always rendered PEACE. ix. 6: “Prince of peace ;” 
 7: “ His government and peace ;? xxvi. 3: “Thou wilt keep 
 him in perfect peace ;” ver.12:“ Thou wilt ordain peace for us ;” 
 xxvii. 5: “He shall make peace with me ;” xxxii. 17: “ The 
 work of righteousness shall be peace ;” ver. 18: “ My people shall 
 dwell in a peaceable habitation ;” xxxiii. 7, xxxviii. 17, Xxxix, 
 8, xli. 3, xlv. 7, xlviii. 18. In Isaiah the word sums up all 
 blessedness. The refrain of each section of our prophecy is, 
 “ No peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” But “how beautiful 
 upon the mountains are the feet of Him that bringeth good 
 tidings, that publisheth peace” (111. 7). Combined as they are, 
 the two words signify, owr peace chastisement ; and the idea, as 
 the context plainly shows, is the chastisement which brings 
 about our peace. Delitzsch refers to ΝΠ nnn, reproof of life, 
 ie. leading to life, in Prov. xv. 31. Thirty-two Mss. read, 
 instead of the sing., the plural IDI’ ; but the word never 
 elsewhere occurs in the plural. “Stngularis tum consue- 
 tudine Hebraica, twm consensu versionum antiquarum satis 
 confirmatur,? Martini. Cf. Rom. iii. 25: “ἱλαστήριον ἐν τῷ 
 αὐτοῦ αἵματι, v. 10; Col. i. 20: εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵμα- 
 τος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ: 1 Pet. ili. 18: Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ 
 ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ 
 Θεῷ. 
 
 V2] was upon Him, in antithesis with the our preceding, 
 OUR peace chastisement was UPON HIM. The force of by here is 
 that which appears e.g. in Isa. 11. 12-16. 
 
 ἸΠἼ2Π2)] and with His stripes; 730, noun sing. used in a 
 collective sense. It occurs four times only in other books, 
 namely, Gen. iv. 23: “A young man for my hurt ;” Ex. 
 xxi, 25: “Stripe for stripe ;” Ps. xxxviil. 5: “ My wounds 
 stink ;” Prov. xx. 30: “ The blueness of a wound.” We find 
 it twice in Isa. i. 6, wownds and BRUISES, and here stripes. It 
 
 447 
 
 comes from the Arabic p>, to be marked with stripes, ef. 
 
 nian. Jer. xiii, 23: “ The leopard, his spots.” The word 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 6. 125 
 
 is rendered in the LXX. μώλωπι, weal; Vulgate, livore. See 
 Poss ohn: xix. Τ᾿ 
 
 s20°NBT3] we are healed. 51), 3 sing. mas. pret. Niphal of 
 NDI, to mend, to heal ; Isa. vi. 10: “Convert and be healed ;” 
 xix. 22:.“ He shall smite and heal it, He shall heal them ;” 
 xxx. 26: “ He healeth the stroke of their wound ;” lvii. 18, 19: 
 “T will heal him: peace, peace to him that is far off and to him 
 that is near; and I will heal him ;” Ps. vi. 2, xxx. 3, xli. 4: 
 “ Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” Literally, τέ 
 was healed to us. The Ὁ is again emphatic, and contrasts 
 with the sm which begins the verse. Nothing can be 
 stronger than the antithesis running through this verse, both 
 between the pronouns he, him, his, on the one hand, and owr, 
 our, our, us, on the other; and that between the wounding, 
 bruising, chastisement, stripes, on the one hand, and the peace 
 and healing on the other. Regarding the last clause, Jerome 
 says: “Suwo vulnere vulnera nostra curavit ;” and Vitringa ex- 
 claims, “ Venustissimum ὀξύμωρον. Justin Martyr makes 
 use of this verse against the unbelieving Jews, to prove that 
 - the Messiah must be a sufferer. Dial. ὁ. Tryphon. c. 32. 95. 
 Justin quotes this fifty-third chapter twenty-one times. 
 Calvin says: “Iterwm nos ad Christum vrevocat, ut confugiamus 
 ad ejus vulnera, si modo vitam recuperare velimus. Hie enim 
 ipsum nobis opponit: quia in nobis nihil procter exitium et 
 mortem reperirt potest ; in uno Christo vita et salus.” 
 
 VERSE 6. 
 AYP) MD WTP wry WH NSD PD 
 pupa ΤΣ mys ἸΒ aren 
 
 LXX.: Πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν, ἄνθρωπος τῇ ὁδῷ 
 αὐτοῦ ἐπλανήθη: καὶ Κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις 
 ἡμῶν. 
 
 VULGATE: Omnes nos. quasi oves erravimus, unusquisque im 
 
126 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 viam suam declinavit, et posuit Dominus in eo iniquitatem 
 omnium nostrum. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 25: Hre Pe ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενα. 
 
 123] All we; 53, πάντες, omnes; see Ps. xiv. 3, liii, 3; $2, 
 Isa. 1. 23, ix. 16 (17); with 1 pers. plur. pron. suffix it savas 
 in antithesis with {2, and, after Isaiah’s manner, is repeated 
 with emphasis at the end of the verse.—|N¥3] like sheep ; 
 the 5 has the pointing of the article, viz. pathach with 
 Dagesh forte following, and this gives the word (according to 
 Rosenmiiller) a demonstrative force, as if implying what is 
 stated in Num. xxvii. 17: ΠΡ DN? PS WE IND, as the sheep 
 which have no shepherd. No doubt the universality of the 
 statement expressed in the ΠΕΣ prevented the prophet from 
 adding the usual qualifying words. See Ps. cxix. 176: 
 Tas nya myn, “ T have gone astray like a lost sheep ;” 1 Kings 
 xxii. 17: “JZ saw all Israel scattered upon the hills as sheep — 
 that have not a shepherd ;” Ezek. xxxiv. 5.— YA] have gone 
 astray, 1 plur. pret. Kal of "YA, to err, to wander, frequently 
 in Isaiahy iii: 19. τς 16) evi Six. 15. 1 χὰ ἢ Saye ree 
 xxix, 24, xxx, ‘28, xxxv. 8, xlvii. 15, lxii.'17. Applied to 
 Israel, Ps. xev. 10: “ Jt ts a people that do err in their heart,” 
 where the inward wanderings are put as correlative to the 
 outward wanderings in the wilderness ; Ezek. xliv. 10: “ When 
 Israel went astray ;” 2 Chron. xxxiii. 9: “ So Manasseh made 
 Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err.’ With these 
 and many other similar statements concerning the sins and 
 rebellion of Israel and Judah before him, one wonders how 
 Rosenmiiller can say : “ Kimchi recte exponit hoc modo : ‘ singule 
 gentes respexerunt ad deos suos; nune autem videmus, nos omnes 
 errasse, ISRAELEM AUTEM RECTAM VIAM TENERE.” It is not too 
 much to say that the O. T. history throughout forbids these 
 words ; and no believer in the Christian religion can for a 
 moment allow them to be true. But the statement is necessary 
 on the part of those who make the we the heathen only, and 
 the he in this passage Israel. — 8 inn? vin] We have turned 
 every one to his own way. Admirable rendering! For this 
 
p41 
 
 CHAPTER LIII. 6. 127 
 
 meaning and use of &8, cf. Gen. x. 5: ino? we, “« Every one after 
 his tongue ;” Num. 11. 2: ὕργητον ws, “« Hvery man by his own 
 standard ;” Num. xvi. 17: innm2 wx, “ Hvery man his censer ;” 
 xxxi. 53: 1 ws, “ Buery man for himself ;” 1 Sam. x. 25: 
 ima? vs,“ Every man to his house.” “ Ab universali sententia 
 ad specialem descendit, ut singult secum reputent, num ita sit,” 
 Calvin. — i577, to his own way, in opposition to God’s ways, 
 which Isaiah often names, eg. 11. 3: “ He will teach us of His 
 
 ways ;” xl. 3: “ The way of the Lord ;” lv. 7-9: “ Neither 
 
 are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” — ΒΒ, 1 plur. pret. 
 Kal of 335, which occurs chapter viii. 21: “ They shall look 
 upward” (in pride) ; xiii, 14: 2B iy-ON WN, « They shall turn 
 every man to his own people ;” lvi. 11 : 38 pay D3, “ They all 
 have turned to their own way.’ Aq.: ἐνεύσαμεν ; Symm. : 
 
 ἐτράπημεν ; Theod.: é€exdivayev. — 13 YBN m1] and the Lorp 
 
 \> hath laid on Him. The mode of distinguishing 717 adopted by 
 
 our translators, namely, printing the word LorD in capitals, is 
 better, we think, than substituting the word Jehovah. The 
 vowels of this word, as is well known, are those of ‘TN, and 
 
 the true pronunciation of the sacred name is supposed to have 
 
 been 7, Jahveh. The adjectival, the Eternal, is too abstract 
 for English usage, and would greatly mar the rhythm of our 
 English version. Where the two words occur together, e.g. 
 Ps, cx. 1, Jehovah might be used, as already in Isa. xii. 2: 
 mn πὸ, the Lorp JEHOVAH. Jahveh cannot now be acclima- 
 tized for common use. The true N. T. name we have in 
 1 John iv. 14 (as compared with 10): ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκε 
 τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. ID, 
 3 sing. pret. Hiphil of 38. Gesenius gives as the primary 
 meaning of this word, to strike wpon, to rush; and Martini, 
 adopting this signification, here renders it: “ Jncursare, fere 
 instar ;” following whom Henderson says: “ Punishment is 
 here represented under the metaphor of a wild beast, to which 
 straying sheep are exposed in the wilderness. It is eagerly 
 looking out for its victims ; but instead of falling in with them, 
 
128 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 it comes in contact with the shepherd himself; compare 
 Zech. xiii. 7.” This explanation might hold if the proposed 
 rendering were the true meaning of the verb. But 35 never 
 has this signification in Scripture. In the instances quoted 
 by Gesenius, the significations, to rush wpon, to kill, as he 
 gives them, are only inferential, eg. 1 Sam. xxii. 17, 18; 
 Judg. viii. 21, xv. 12; 2 Sam. i115; “fall upon” is clearly 
 the meaning, though the purpose is ¢o slay. This is clear 
 from 1 Kings i. 25, 34, 46, where the effect is expressed : 
 “ He fell upon him that he died;” “ He fell upon him, and 
 slew him.” Martini himself says: “ Verbum 335 cum 2 con- 
 structum sensu proprio est, incidere in aliquem,’ and he refers 
 to Gen. xxviii. 11: Dippea yb», “ He lighted upon a certain 
 place” (no hostility or violence of attack is possibly meant 
 here). See also Gen. xxxii. 1: “ The angels of God met him ;” 
 Ex. v. 20: “ They met Moses;” 1 Sam. x. 5: “ Thow shalt 
 meet a company.” In Josh. xix. 11, 22, 26, 27, 34, the verb 
 is six times used to denote the extent of a country till it 
 meets another—“ reacheth to Carmel,’ and so on. So in the 
 difficult expression, Isa. xlvii. 3: DIS YN sd, “17 will not 
 meet man,’ the negative shows that the word does not denote 
 hostile action. Again, Isa. lxiv. 5: “ Thou meetest him that 
 rejoiceth.” This signification leads on to that which we have 
 in verse 12 of this chapter, and in lix. 16 (see verse 12). 
 In some passages the word carries with it the idea of oppor- 
 tunity; see ¥28 in Eccles. ix. 11. We therefore adhere to the 
 sig. which Martini first names, in Hiphil, to cause to fall upon, 
 with the idea of meeting or converging ; literally, the Lord hath 
 caused to meet in Him and fall wpon Him. Symm.: Κύριος δὲ 
 καταντῆσαι ἐποίησεν εἰς αὐτόν. “Est hic elegans antithesis, nam in 
 nobis dissipati sumus, in Christo collecti,’ Calvin. The manner 
 in which the restoration is accomplished is here described by 
 the prophet. “Our iniquities met and fell upon Him; He, 
 the Good Shepherd, giveth His life for the sheep” (John x. 12), 
 and “ye are brought back (ἐπεστράφητε) to Him who is the 
 Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. i. 25).— 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 6. 129 
 
 SEP) iv NN] the iniquity of us all. The ΠΣ is demonstrative 
 and emphatic, as represented by the article in our version; 
 iY, iniquity, implies, as we have seen (verse 5), both the sinful 
 act and the guilt it involves. The expression reminds us of 
 2 Cor. v. 21: τὸν yap μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν 
 ἐποίησεν. The position and force of 052 here is very sig- 
 nificant. “ Let every one,” says Calvin, “ponder his own 
 iniquities, that he may learn how great was his Saviour’s 
 burden, and find rest in Him.” Universal as is the sin, 
 universal is the propitiation ; and accordingly Calvin says: 
 “ Unusquisque hine consolationem percipiat, atque fructum hujus 
 doctrine in usum suum accommodet, nam cium publice omnibus, 
 tum singulis separatim hee dicuntur.” Elsewhere he says: 
 “ Jesus Christ is not the Saviour of three or four, but offers 
 Himself to all. He did not come to be Mediator between 
 two or three men, but between God and men; not to reconcile 
 a small number of people to God, but to extend His grace to 
 the whole world.”—Sermon quoted in D’Aubigné, vol. vii. 
 All attempts to vindicate the language employed in verses 4, 
 5, 6 from the charge of expressly and in the fullest way 
 teaching the doctrine of vicarious suffering and substitution, 
 amount to an emptying or perverting of the plain meaning of 
 words. But why should they thus be vindicated? The 
 doctrine is in perfect keeping with all that the Jewish 
 ceremonial embodied, and with the teaching alike of the 
 Redeemer Himself (Matt. xx. 28; John x. 11; Luke xxii. 
 20) and His apostles, St. Paul (Rom. iii, 24-26), St. Peter 
 (1 Pet. 11. 24, 25), and St. John (1 John ii. 2). It satisfies 
 the divine holiness, and the demands of the sinner’s own 
 conscience. It fully recognises the reality of sin and its 
 exceeding sinfulness, whereas all other attempted explanations 
 tend to make light of sin, or at least to represent it more or 
 less as a matter of human weakness which a good-natured 
 God will readily pass over and forgive without a ransom. It 
 presents the way of salvation as simple and straightforward ; 
 
 all can understand it; whereas other attempted explanations 
 I 
 
130 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 of the efficacy of Christ’s redemptive work are cloudy, in- 
 definite, mystified, abstruse, and difficult of apprehension even 
 by the learned. 
 
 VERSE 7. 
 be δ Ε ~ A ’ 
 Ma TSA NP) Av] SIT) wD 
 ie : t ‘ 
 NO) ΠΌΡΟΝ md wee Oo Sar ny? 
 ΣῊ MDE 
 
 LXX.: Kai αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακώσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα 
 αὐτοῦ" ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη, καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ 
 κείραντος αὐτὸν ἄφωνος, οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ. 
 
 VULGATE: Oblatus est quia ipse voluit, et non aperurt os suum 
 sicut ovis ad occisionem ducetur, et quasi agnus coram tondente 
 se obmutescet, et non aperiet os suwm. 
 
 Acts viii. 32: ‘As πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη, καὶ ὡς 
 ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν ἄφωνος" οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει 
 τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ. 
 
 v3] He was oppressed. There has been much controversy 
 about the reading here. The LXX. omit the word altogether. 
 Almost all the early interpreters adopt the reading with shin, 
 
 wn, though they differ as to the pronunciation and mean- 
 ing. The Vulgate renders: “ Oblatus est (cf. YD, to be offered, 
 
 Mal. i. 11) quia ipse voluat D0 pool ὁ, accessit et humili- 
 
 Ε 
 
 avit se;” Symm.: προσηνέχθη, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπήκουσε; the 
 Chaldee, 29ND Nin ‘p32, “deprecatus est et ise exauditus est” 
 (03) being taken to denote access to God). Five codices 
 have this reading, according to de Rossi, and perhaps two 
 others, which have the diacritic pot on the middle of the wv. 
 The diacritic point, however, is itself of comparatively late 
 origin, so that in the case of the earlier versions the question 
 is not what the translators read, but what they judged to be 
 
 the thought intended ; and the question really is, which read- 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 7. 131 
 
 ing gives the most suitable sense, and is most in keeping with 
 the context? © Michaelis, reading Ὁ) (thus changing the 
 vowels), renders: “ Accessit atque subjecit sese;” but Martini 
 remarks concerning this, that there is nothing in the preceding 
 context showing what he drew nigh to, and that the prophet 
 would, if this were meant, be chargeable with ambiguity. 
 Castellus renders: “ Supplex accessit ;” but thus, the main sig- 
 nification of wx almost disappears. We thus are led to the 
 reading δ) with &; but here again a great variety of render- 
 ing appears. Doederlein renders: “ Horwm mulctam exegit ;” 
 Koppe (reading 32): “Pane de nobis ewigende erant, we 
 should have suffered punishment, but He endured it.” Vit- 
 ringa, followed by Dathe, Lowth, and others, renders: “Jt was 
 exacted, and He became answerable.” But Wi) as thus used 
 carries with it the idea of compulsion and force,—it is the 
 exacting of a debt from an unwilling debtor,—an idea which 
 obviously contradicts the context. We therefore follow our 
 English translators, who have recognised in the verb the idea 
 of oppression. Thus the part. Kal is used, Isa. 11. 12: “Chil- 
 dren are their oppressors” (2); ix. 4: “The rod of His 
 oppressor ;” xiv. 2: “ They shall rule over their oppressors,” 
 verse 4; lx. 17: “Thine exactors;” Zech. ix. 8: “No 
 oppressor” (#33); Job iii. 18, xxxix. 5. Martini, followed by 
 Gesenius, adopts the rendering which our translators give, 
 taking the word as the Niphal pret. of ws, “ He was oppressed ;” 
 thus we find it in Isa. 111, 5: “The people shall be oppressed,” 
 and in 1 Sam. xiii. 6: “The people were distressed ;” xiv. 24: 
 “The men of Israel were distressed.” — | and He. It is not 
 easy to explain the position of the pronoun here. Martini 
 remarks, “Verba propter pronomen cum prefizo \ non commode . 
 ad eandem personam referri posse,” and he solves the difficulty 
 by simply transposing the \—thus: 7292) 817 33; in this he is 
 supported by the reading of Codex 182, as given by Kenni- 
 cott. Gesenius explains 87) by the analogy of the Arabic 
 2s, 28 signifying although ; according to Saad.: “ Agitatus est 
 cum tamen afflictus esset.” Alexander rightly rejects this as con- 
 
Se COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 trary to Hebrew usage, and regards the 8%) simply as emphatic. 
 So our translators have taken it, “He was oppressed, and He was 
 afflicted.” —3Y3] was afflicted, part. Niphal of 729. Many 
 render this reflectively, and take it as the verb fo answer; so 
 Vitringa: “ He became answerable ;” Dathe: “ Ad diem respondet, 
 sine mora debitum solvit;—a mode of expression familiar to 
 Latin, but alien to Hebrew. Ewald renders: “He was 
 oppressed, although He humbled Himself.” Alexander: “He 
 was oppressed, and He Himself submitted to affliction.” 
 Gesenius and Martini, however, adopt the other signification 
 of the word, viz. graviter afflictus. This is certainly more in 
 keeping with the connection, for we have already had the 
 enhancing of the same idea by the addition of another 
 synonym; thus verse 3: “despised and rejected;” verse 5: 
 “ wounded and bruised ;” so here, “ He was oppressed, and He 
 was afflicted.” Cf. chapter lviii. 10 : “ Satisfy the afflicted soul” 
 (my WE); Ps. cxvi. 10: “I was greatly afflicted ;” cxix. 67, 
 
 107. ---- ῬΕΓΠΡΕΝ Noi] yet He opened not His mouth. MAB, ὃ 
 
 sing. -mas. fut. Kal of MN, to open; often in Isaiah’s earlier 
 and later prophecies. Cf. Ps. xxxviii. 14: “As a dumb man 
 that openeth not his mouth ;” Ps, xxxix. 9: “I opened not my 
 mouth.” ΓΞ] as the lamb, definite on account of the pointing 
 of the 3 as the lamb, probably with a reference to the Pass- 
 over lamb; this being the word used in Ex. xil. 3—5, ef. 
 Gen. xxii. 7, 8; the comparison would be well understood 
 by every Israelite. — n>] to the slaughter, from m2, akin 
 to nt, to, sacrifice ; see Isa, xxxiv. 2: “ He hath delivered them 
 to the slaughter ;” lxv. 12: “Ye shall all bow down to the 
 slaughter.” Symm.: εἰς θυσίαν. — 53") He was brought, 3 
 sing. mas. fut. Hophal from ba, to flow (Isa. xxx. 25, xliv. 4), 
 used in Hiphil and Hophal only, to lead, to be led; Isa. 
 xviii. 7: “Shall a present be brought ;” xxiii. 7: “ Her own 
 feet shall carry her afar off ;” lv. 12: “ And be led forth with 
 peace.” Some, eg. Delitzsch, take the verb to refer to NY only : 
 “As a sheep that is brought to the slaughter ;” others, eg. 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 7. Pac 
 
 Alexander: “ He is brought as a sheep to the slaughter.” In 
 Jer. xi. 19 we have a similar expression: “ But I was like a 
 lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter,’ nian? boy, where 
 the verb precedes the object; here, however, it follows. 20, 
 moreover, is used more frequently of the slaughter of men 
 than of animals; cf. chapters xxxiv. 2, 6, Ixv. 12; Jer. 
 xlvin. 15, 1 27; Ezek. xxi. 10, 15,28: ‘In Prov. vii. 22 
 the former of the two renderings seems to be sanctioned : “As 
 an ox goeth to the slaughter,’ 82 nanos "iva; but even here 
 the rendering is quite admissible, “As an ox to the slaughter 
 He goeth.” Indeed, it is more appropriate to refer the active 
 82. to the man, and not to the driven ox. The prophet’s 
 comparison is to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and he 
 says: “As the lamb to the slaughter He is brought.” The 
 analogy of the following clause can hardly be adduced, because 
 the verb is in a different tense. — $33] and asasheep. This 
 noun is feminine, and occurs only four times in Scripture, 
 Gen. xxxl. 38, xxxii. 14 (rendered ewes), Song vi. 6, and 
 
 here. It answers to the Arabic Js, a female lamb. It is 
 
 the name of Jacob’s wife, Rachel, see Gen. xxix. and xxx. 
 Gesenius says the difference between the 1¥ and the om 
 cannot be expressed in German. They both designate the 
 full-grown lamb “of the first year,’ Ex. xii. 5, the one male, 
 the other female. —13 25] before her shearers, ΠῚ), act. 
 part. plur. Kal with 3 sing. fem. pronom. suffix. 1 occurs 
 fifteen times in Scripture: to shear sheep, Gen. xxxi. 19, 
 ἘΥΣ Lay ba) ΠΟ ταν "1 Sam: eave 2/4411: 
 2 Sam. xii. 23, 24; to cut off the hair, Job i. 20; Jer. vu. 29 ; 
 Micah i. 16; figuratively, to mow down, Nahum i.12. The 
 firstling male was not to be shorn, see Deut. xv. 19. — moss 2] 
 is dumb, 3 sing. fut. pret. Niphal of Dox, not used in Kal. 
 Pa xuxxix. 3, 10; Ezek, 11.26) xxiv. 27, xxxiii. 22. The 
 adj. pbs, in Isa. xxxv. 6: “The tongue of the dumb sing ;” 
 lvi. 10. The form of the verb, agreeing in gender with orn, 
 unites it thereto as its predicate. The dumbness of the sufferer 
 
134 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 is expressed in the words that follow. — 15 MA5 NOY] so He 
 opened not His mouth; following the LXX., which has οὕτως 
 οὐκ, the | indicating the apodosis. Gesenius takes these final 
 words to belong to the simile, “and openeth not its mouth.” 
 But the gender, both of the verb NMS. and of the suffix 18, 
 is masculine, whereas om is feminine. Gesenius therefore 
 suggests that the writer has 0¥ in his mind; but this is far- 
 fetched. The athnach clearly closes the simile, and divides it 
 from the following words, which are, after Isaiah’s manner, a 
 repetition of the words which immediately precede the simile. 
 Michaelis joins the words to the Ἵν} of the following verse, but 
 Martini takes them rightly as referring to the Divine Servant ; 
 he says: “Vi atque elegantia sua non caret hee ipsa verborum 
 eorundem repetitio,’ and he compares it with the repetition in 
 Judg. v.16. The he would not render οὕτως, or sic, but: “ In 
 versione vel prorsus omittendum vel reddendum inquam,— 
 os, inguam, non aperutt.” The English version, sanctioned by 
 the LXX., better renders the force and beauty of the original. 
 
 Regarding this verse, Delitzsch remarks : “ All the references 
 in the N. T. to the Lamb of God (with which the correspond- 
 ing allusions to the Passover are interwoven) spring from this 
 passage in the book of Isaiah.” This may fairly be said, 
 though it is manifest that the words of the Baptist, John i. 
 29: “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the 
 world,’ uttered as they were so near the Passover (John 1]. 13), 
 refer in the first instance to the Paschal lamb, Ex. xii., ὁ ἀμνός, 
 the lamb, just as NY in our verse here. In Rev. v. 6 the 
 expression ἀρνίον ws ἐσφαγμένον is certainly parallel withthe 
 nave ny here, LXX.: ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη. In Acts viii. 32 
 this and the following verse are given as the passage read. by 
 the Eunuch from the book of the prophet HEsaias, and we are 
 told that in reply to the Eunuch’s question, “Of whom speaketh 
 the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Philip 
 began at the same scripture, and preached unto him JESUS.” 
 In 1 Pet. i. 19: ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου Kal ᾿ 
 ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ, this verse was evidently in the writer's 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 8. 135 
 
 mind, and suggested the comparison of the blood of Christ to 
 the blood “of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” 
 See Schott on 1 Peter, p. 66 sqq. The verse presents (a) the 
 Servant’s sufferings as a sin-offering, and (6) the submissiveness 
 with which they were borne. Obedient wnto death, Phil. ii. 8. 
 
 VERSE 8. | 
 Mme Ὃ TITAN) ΠΡ ΒΦ wy 
 toe ya esr ywan ovo PINE hop 
 
 LXX.: Ἔν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη" τὴν γενεὰν 
 αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται ; ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ, 
 
 ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον. 
 
 VULGATE: De angustia et de judicio sublatus est ; generationem 
 ejus quis enarrabit? quia abscissus est de terra viventium ; 
 propter scelus popult met percusst ewm. 
 
 Acts viii. 33: ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη, 
 τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται ; ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ 
 ζωὴ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 “ Persequitur vates calamitates Ministri illius Divint, non 
 nisi morte ejus finiendas,” Martini. “The prophet now reaches 
 the culminating point, in his description of the sufferings of 
 the Messiah, viz. the unjust death in which they terminated,” 
 Henderson. 
 
 nee paving ἼΣΨΟ] He was taken from prison and from judg- 
 
 ment. ἽΝ, the prep. [Ὁ and the mas. noun ‘$Y, which 
 occurs only twice elsewhere, viz. Ps. evii. 39: “ Again, they are 
 minished, and brought low, through oppression” ("8Y2); Prov. 
 xxx. 16: “ The grave, the barren womb” (7891 rine’) ; from the 
 verb NY, to shut (1 Kings xxi. 21), to restrain (Gen. xvi. 2; 
 Isa. lxvi. 9); the fem. 71¥¥ in chapter 1. 13: “ The solemn 
 meeting ;” see Joel i. 14. ὍΝ is the verb used to express the 
 staying of the plague (cf. 321 at the end of the verse), Num. 
 
136 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 xvi. 48: “The plague was stayed ;” xxv. 8; Ps. evi. 30: 
 “ Then stood up Phinehas and executed gudgment, and the plague 
 was stayed ;” 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, 21, 25: “ These sheep, what 
 have they done? Let Thine hand be against me, and against my 
 father’s house, . . . that the plague may be stayed (T8YM)) from 
 the people.” ΝΜ 15. used in Judg. xviii. 7 to denote perhaps 
 one who restrains from injustice, and ¥¥° in 1 Sam. ix. 17 in 
 a similar sense. Occurring side by side with DW here, some 
 take it to denote a tribunal of justice for His defence. Harris 
 takes ὍΝ to be a false reading for ἽΝ, helper, which he ex- 
 plains as advocate; see his long dissertation on this word 
 (Com. on Isa. lili). But there is no sufficient ground for 
 changing the ¥ into ἢ. Martini and Gesenius give the word 
 a less definite meaning; “Bene Alexandrinus sy vocabulo 
 ταπεινώσις reditit,’ says Martini, and he compares στενοχωρία, 
 Rom. vi. 35; 2 Cor. vi. 4. Michaelis joins this word with 
 the preceding Ὁ) ΠΗ" Nr, angustiis oppressus os non aperuit, 
 and he claims the LXX. as sanctioning this, οὐκ ἀνούγει τὸ 
 στόμα ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει (αὐτοῦ, Luke viii. 33). He then 
 translates the two following words, judicis sententiam in se 
 latam, equo animo ratam habuit. But the LXX. itself hardly 
 bears this meaning; ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη is pena ejus ablata 
 est, a pena liberatus, his judgment was taken away. Moreover, 
 the rendering of the LXX. must not override the meaning 
 of the Hebrew words. Even Vitringa says here that the 
 Greek interpreter of Isaiah was imperitus, and that Luke 
 does not approve it with his own judgment, but only relates 
 it with the fidelity which always becomes a true historian ; for 
 the Eunuch was found by Philip reading the LXX. The verb 
 means to arrest or restrain; and the noun here, violent restraint, 
 custody.—b2v2 is clearly co-ordinate with 739, and from 
 judgment. Martini says, concerning DBY2 : “Si sensum spectes 
 non differt a preecedenti 7¥y nisi quod notionem Dei, has plagas 
 peene instar infligentis, sibi adjunctam habeat. Quicquid nimi- 
 rum homini a Deo immittitur, sive bonum id fuerit, sive malum, 
 ex usu sermonis pawn dicitur, vid. Isa, xl. 27.” This remark 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 8. 187 
 
 is true, and Gesenius follows Martini in appealing to the 
 Latin poets who use pena for calamitas, Seneca, Troad. 1082: 
 “ Adhuc Achilles vivit in penas Phrygum.” Cf. the Syriac 
 
 Lis) 00 Lieasin <0, e carcere et ex judicio. There is 
 
 no need to depart from the true and literal signification of 
 these words, and to understand them as denoting calamity 
 generally. Such a departure seems to have been dictated by 
 the views these scholars entertained as to the reference of 
 the prophecy. Supposing THE SERVANT to have been Christ, 
 the words in their plain and literal sense are strikingly 
 appropriate. — nP?] 3 sing. mas. pret. Pual of np. Calvin 
 and Vitringa take this as denoting a taking up into glory. 
 Martini, Gesenius, and most others, a taking away by death. 
 The word is used of Enoch, Gen. v. 24: “He was not; for 
 God took him.” It is used by the sons of the prophets in 
 expectation of Elijah’s departure, 2 Kings 1. 3, 5; also verses 
 9, 10, by Elijah; see also Ps. xlix. 18: Mp Inia salen 24: 
 “And afterward receive me to glory” (ΠΡῚΝ 7333). These 
 references seem to sanction Calvin’s view; but np> generally 
 denotes a forcible taking away; and it is more in keeping 
 with the context, and parallel with 123, to understand it of 
 being hurried away to death; see Prov. xxiv. 11: “ Those 
 drawn unto death” (nib pnp). Harris refers to Job xxvil. 2, 
 xxxiv. 5; but 73D, and not npo, is the verb used in these places. 
 He takes the verb to describe the Messiah as “one deprived of 
 His just trial.” We retain the signification : He was taken. 
 nnit ὙὉ ὙΠ ΤΙΝ] and who considereth His generation? Our 
 version follows, and is sanctioned by, the LXX. and the Vul- 
 gate. “7, generation, occurs xili. 20: “From generation to 
 generation ;” xxxiv. 10, 17, xxxviii. 12: “Mine age (ὙΠ) ts 
 departed ;” xli. 4: “ Calling the generations from the beginning ;” 
 li. 8 : “ From generation to generation ;” verse 9 : “ In the genera- 
 tions of old ;” lviii. 12: “ Many generations” (WWW) ; lx. 15: 
 ἍΤ will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many genera- 
 tions ;” lxi. 4: “ Many generations.” From these texts it is 
 
138 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 evident that Isaiah uses the word in its usual sense, like “ his 
 generations,” Gen. vi. 9; “ your generations,” Ex. xii. 17 ; not as 
 signifying contemporaries merely, but ancestors, as past genera- 
 tions, and descendants, as future generations; cf. Eccles. i. 4: 
 “One generation goeth and another cometh;” Job xlii. 16: 
 “Four generations.”  \1 alone is an age or generation of men; 
 the plural ninis, a succession of generations; 03°'N45, your genera- 
 tions successively. The generation of mortal man is but for a 
 few years, but the Divine Servant’s generation is from eternity 
 (John 1. 1) to eternity. Ps. xxi. 30: “A seed shall serve 
 Him ; τέ shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation” (379). 
 The word 115, like the N. T. γενεά, often includes a moral 
 relationship, and denotes a class of characters: evil, see Deut. 
 xxxl 5, 20; Prov. xxx. 11-14; Ps. lxxviii. 8; good, see 
 ' Ps. xiv. 5: “ The generation of the righteous ;” Gen. vi. 9: 
 “ Perfect in his generations ;” Ps. xxii. 31, xxiv. 6, cxii. 2 
 (Phinehas, Ps. evi. 31). ‘iTS denotes the accusative, cf. 
 Jer. vu. 29: “ The Lorp hath forsaken the generation (TNS) 
 of His wrath.’ M8 is very rarely put before a nominative 
 (see Gen. xvii. 5); and even in cases where it is supposed to 
 be so, the verb is in the passive, and may be take imperson- 
 ally (see Ges. Lex. M8). Gesenius takes TNS here as the 
 nom. abs., and renders: “ And who of His contemporaries con- 
 sidered that He was cut off out of the land of the living ?” 
 Alexander, taking M8 as a preposition, renders: “ Jn His genera- 
 tion, who considered that He was cut off?” etc. The athnach 
 forbids this blending of the two clauses. The interrogative ‘> 
 is here used as in verse 1.— ΠῚ] 3 sing. mas. fut. Polel of 
 nv, to talk, to meditate, Ps. exlv. 5: “I will speak of the 
 glorious honour ;” exix. 15: “I will meditate on Thy pre- 
 cepts ;” cexliii. 5: “I muse (AMX side by side with ‘7721 and 
 39) on the work of Thy hands.” Usually followed by 3, but 
 not always, see Ps. cxlv. 5; Henderson renders: “ Who can 
 describe His generation?” “as to the men of His generation, 
 who can conceive of their atrocious wickedness?” But 
 Kimchi: ΠΟΥ qo $a yt ate rat mn sn, “ Quis dicturus esset, 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 8. 139 
 
 generationem ejus tam magnam fore?” ' Jarchi understands by 
 “ἢ the length of the Divine Servant’s life, as in chapter 
 XXXvVili. 12, and suggests as the sense: “Quis enarraturus 
 est omnes molestias quas ille pertulit?” Rosenmiiller: “ Quod 
 attinet ad cocevos suos quis meditatur—quando eaxcisus esset ¢ 
 terra viventium,—propter delictum populi mer plaga eis, scil. 
 Hebreis.’ Were the expositor’s view of the Servant meant 
 influences his explanation. The question as to the plain gram- 
 matical signification of the words, What does the writer 
 actually say? should first be settled; then may follow the 
 second inquiry, What does he mean by his statement? Now, 
 as to the first, taking the words in their plain and naked 
 sense as they lie, Isaiah says: “His generation who const- 
 dereth ?”—a statement in the form of a question like that 
 in verse 1: “Who hath believed our report ? and to whom is the 
 arm of the Lord revealed?” and like it implying, no one 
 estimated or could tell. This is the prophet’s statement, 
 and we therefore adhere to the rendering of the LXX. and 
 Vulgate. As to its import, any explanation must depend 
 upon the view taken of the Servant. If the Messiah be 
 meant, the prophet’s words must be taken as intimating. that 
 none fully estimated the Redeemer’s generation, in its widest 
 sense a parte ante as to His origin (Matt. i. 1: βίβλος γενέσεως 
 "I. X.; verse 18: ἡ γέννησις), as to His earthly life (Isa. 
 Xxxvili. 12), as to His character, perfect in holiness, and a 
 parte post as to His everlasting reign, verse 11; Ps. xxii. 30 
 ’ and Rey. i. 17, 18. 
 
 Den IS) W2°3] For He was cut off out of the land of the 
 
 living. 123, 3 sing. mas. pret. Niphal of "3, to cut, to cut off. 
 The future Kal, in Isa. ix. 20; the noun, 173, in Gen. xv, 17 ; 
 Niphal, in 2 Chron. xxvi. 21: “ Uzziah was a leper unto the 
 day of his death... for he was cut off from the house of the 
 Lorp ;” Lam. iii. 54: “J said, I am cut off;” Ezek. xxxvii. 
 11: “We are cut of.” See, in particular, Ps. Ixxxvii. 5: 
 
 “ They are cut off 02) from Thy hand.” The word denotes a 
 
140 COMMENTARY ON ISATAH. 
 
 violent death. — "Nn yD, as in chapter xxviii. 11: “ I shall 
 not see the Lorp in the land of the living” (BY 783) ; and cf. 
 Jer. xi. 19, xxxii. 23-27; Ps. xxvii. 13, lii5, exvi, 9, cxlii. 
 ©2; Job xxviii. 13. Symm.: ἀπετμήθη yap ἐκ γῆς ζώντων ; 
 Theod.: ὅτε ἀπετμήθη ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων. ip? yi2 “ay YwE] for 
 the transgression of my people was He stricken, following 
 Symm.: καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν τοῦ λαοῦ pov, and the Vulgate. 
 ΡΣ ΞΟ is the same with %.yW50 in verse 5, the }® signifying the 
 cause or reason, in consequence of, because of. The expression 
 ἜΝ often occurs in Isaiah (i. 3, iii, 12, 15, v. 13, x. 2, 24, 
 xxi) 4, kxvili20,xxxii 1/3;—<1 41) xii, 20 πο» hh. 41 
 li. 4, 5, 6, lvii. 14, lviii. 1: show my people their trans- 
 gression, DYWE py), In all these places it denotes the chosen 
 people collectively. The use of the word here expressly 
 distinguishes them from the Divine Servant. — ¥2)] plague, 
 stroke, smiting, noun mas.; cf. 3832, verse 4. The noun is 
 used of the plague of leprosy sixty times in Lev. xiil, xiv. 
 — in] to Him. The LXX. read mid, ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον, and 
 pointing 922, and this is adopted by Houbigant, Michaelis, 
 Kennicott, Lowth; and even Origen (6. Celswm, i. 370) is 
 quoted as sanctioning the reading: ὠπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ 
 μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον. “In Origen’s dispute with the Jews, 
 the argument did not turn upon the rendering of this par- 
 ticular word, but upon 3, τοῦ λαοῦ pov, my people, from 
 whom the person spoken of is evidently distinguished. On 
 this being urged, the Jew who had objected that it was not 
 one man but one people that was meant, was silenced,” 
 Henderson, following Martini, who adds: “If the reading 
 mn were genuine, it is not easy to understand how a reading 
 so clear should be changed into ἡ, which is so difficult, and 
 yet occurs in all the other versions ;” and he concludes : 
 “ Ttaque precepta critica flagitare videntur, ut lectionem vul- 
 gatam, tot suffragiis munitam, eamque dificiliorem, cur tamen 
 et sua constat sententia, retineamus, lectionem nvod autem, sive 
 eam in libro suo vere habuerit Alexandrinus, sive per oculorum 
 errorem in eam inciderit, inter felicia errata, quee commodam et 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 8. 141 
 
 aliquando fere acutiorem, quam vetustior scriptura, τύχικως, 
 sententiam efficiunt, numerandum existimemus. Possis etiam 
 dicere, Alexandrinum, ut innumeris aliis in locis, contentum 
 Suisse, tale quid dedisse, quod sermonis contextut utcwnque con- 
 veniret.” Adopting, with Martini, Gesenius, and most others, 
 the reading ind, the question meets us, must we of necessity 
 take this word as plural, to them? Symm. thus takes it 
 (αὐτοῖς), and Theod., but this is doubtful; see Field’s Origen 
 in loc., where the reading of another codex is given. “ Nescio 
 an verius, Cod. 88; Aq.: ὅτε ἄπετμ. ἀπὸ y. &, ἀπὸ abecias 
 λαοῦ μου ἤψατο αὐτῶν. Symm. Theod.: azerp. ἐκ γ. ©, διὰ 
 τὴν ἀθεσίαν τ. r. πληγὴ αὐτός (sic).” Martini takes it as plural, 
 and supplies wks, thus: yan ind awk ὯΝ ywan, rendering the 
 whole sentence: Quis erat, qui animo reputaret, e consortio 
 hominum eum sublatum esse propter delicta popult met, qui 
 lethali plaga erat percutiendus ; “ who considered that He was 
 cut off out of the land of the living on account of the trans- 
 gression of my people, who ought to have borne the punish- 
 ment.” E. L. Vriemoet renders: “ Ob peccata populi mer plaga 
 factus pro tis—et eorum loco,” which would require the reading 
 yi2. Gesenius takes ind as strictly plural for pn, to them, 1.6. 
 to the Servant of Jehovah as a collective term; and, with 
 others, he finds in the use of ind a proof that the Divine 
 Servant is not one individual. Now the singular subject is 
 indicated by form of verb or pronoun in 11. 13, jive times ; 
 14, three times; 15, twice; 1111. 2, fowr times; 3, seven times ; 
 4, seven times; 5, five times; 6, once; 7, seven times; 8, three 
 times; 9, fowr times; 10, five times; 11, nine times; 12, 
 eight times : in all, SEVENTY TIMES. Thus, even if 10? must be 
 plural, one or two plurals would be of little weight against the 
 repeated and continuous use of the singular throughout the 
 chapter. But inp certainly is used elsewhere as a singular. 
 In chapter xliv. 15: i>-3b4 Spa any, « He maketh it a graven 
 image, and falleth down thereto.” oDB here is certainly not 
 used collectively, “ of part of the tree he makes a fire, and of 
 part he maketh a graven image,’ some one definite idol. Here, 
 
142 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 therefore, ind is clearly singular. Again, twice in Gen. ix. 26, 
 27: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be 
 his servant ” (in? 72). Here Shem is said to be used collec- 
 tively, and so Japheth. But the connection does not require 
 this supposition—it rather forbids it. For the three sons are 
 spoken of individually and personally immediately before, and 
 in verse 25 the pronoun used for Canaan is singular, YAN, to 
 HIS brethren. Again, Ps. xi. 7: “ His cowntenance (2.25) doth 
 behold the wpright.” See also Job xx. 23: ininba ἡ ον, in the 
 midst of singulars describing a wicked man. Job xxii. 2: 
 “Unto himself” (1°Y), Deut. xxxiii. 2 is also named by 
 Ewald, who maintains the poetic use of this old form as a 
 singular (see Lehrbuch, sec. 247, p. 625). The language here 
 answers to that used of the sin-offering on the great Day of 
 Atonement, for the people (DY?), and because of their trans- 
 gressions (DNYWED), Lev. xvi. 15, 16. | 
 
 VERSE 9. 
 ὙΠΩΞ ὙΠ Nap Oyen 1 
 : YER MDT N7) MY DEIN? 2y 
 
 LXX.: Kai δώσω (Symm.: δώσει) τοὺς πονηροὺς ἀντὶ Ths 
 ταφῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοὺς ““λουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ὅτι 
 > / > > / IO\ Ei εὐ, , 5 A / » a 
 ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν TO στόματι αὐτοῦ. 
 
 VULGATE: Et dabit impiosa pro sepultura et divitem pro 
 morte sua; eo quod iniquitatem non fecerit, neque dolus fuit 
 im ore 6718. 
 
 1 Pet. ii, 22 : Ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος 
 
 ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. 
 ap O'yer-ns jn] And they made His grave with the wicked. 
 
 in}, 3 sing..mas. fut. Kal of 02. Often used with the significa- 
 tion, to set or appoint, e.g. Gen. i.17. It is used impersonally, 
 Prov. xili, 10: “ From pride arises strife ;” Job xxxvii. 10: 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 9. 143 
 
 « By the breath of God (ΠΡ ΠΝ) frost is given.” Accordingly, 
 Gesenius and others render it: “ They appointed His grave,’ ete. 
 This seems the best way of taking the verb here. Some have 
 supposed Jehovah to be the implied subject, He assigned him ; 
 but Delitzsch objects that this would be out of harmony with ° 
 verse 10, where the subject Jehovah is introduced with anti- 
 thetical prominence. Others take ‘SY of verse 8 as the subject; 
 but ‘SY there is only the indirect object, and has not sufficient 
 prominence. The meaning, however, is the same. If we read 
 the verb impersonally, as in German man gab, they appointed, 
 the reference is to the Jews, who are also referred to in ‘SY. 
 The reading of the LXX., δώσω, may be accounted for either 
 upon the supposition of jn in the codex used, or by the judg- 
 ment of the translators, who thought to make the meaning 
 clearer by changing the third person into the first. All other 
 ancient versions give the rendering of jn. — D'Yw"nN] with 
 the wicked. Our translators have taken NN here, not as the 
 sign of the accusative, but as the preposition ; see eg. lxiii. 11; 
 Jer. xv. 14; Josh. xi. 18; Hos. v. 7, vii. 5; so Martini and 
 Gesenius, Henderson and Delitzsch. YY" occurs six times in 
 the earlier Gu. 11,-v. 23, x14, xii. 11, xiv. 5, xxvi. 10), 
 and five times in the later chapters (xlviii. 22, lv. 7, lvii. 
 
 20, 21, and here), — 130] his grave. The word is usually 
 
 rendered sepulchre, grave, or burying-place, from ΞΡ, to bury. 
 It occurs chapter xiv. 19, xxu. 16, twice, Ιχν. 4. Kenni- 
 cott changed the place of this word with that of nwa, and 
 read ὙἼ3Ρ3 Wy NN ina Dye ns jn: “He was assigned with 
 the wicked in His death, and with the rich was His sepulchre;” 
 but the only reason of the change is the accommodating of 
 the verse to the circumstances of Christ’s death and burial. 
 Dathe, retaining the position of the words, renders : “ Destina- 
 tum quidem οἱ erat sepulchrum cum impiis, sed in morte fuit 
 cum divite,” the Jews, that is, had intended for Christ a grave 
 among the wicked; but God had otherwise provided, and He 
 was buried in the grave of the rich Joseph of Arimathea. 
 
144 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 Martini objects, that if this had been meant, we should 
 have had xiv after wy; but Henderson vindicates it, and 
 renders: “They had also assigned Him His grave with the 
 wicked, but He was with the rich after His death.” But this, 
 it must be allowed, is an accommodation which the words as 
 they stand do not require. Gesenius refers to Jer. xxvi. 23: 
 “ They cast his (Urijah’s) dead body into the graves of the 
 common people,” DYN 53 apo ; and he observes that the im- 
 portance attached to the place of burial among the Hebrews 
 is clear from, e.g. Gen. xxiii. 4 sqq., xlvi. 4, xlix. 31; Judg. 
 vili. 31; compare 2 Chron. xxi. 20, xxiv. 25, xxviii 27. 
 Rosenmiiller takes M8 as the sign of the accusative, and takes 
 3? as the noun used for the infinitive, with its suffix, as in 
 Gen. xxix. 20; 2 Sam. iii. 11; and he renders the clause: 
 “ Permisit impiis sepelire ipsum.’ Symm.: καὶ δώσει τοὺς 
 ἀσεβεῖς LXX.: τοὺς πονηρούς. Calvin says: “Ego potius 
 genuinum hune esse sensum arbitror, quod Deus Pater Christum 
 tradiderit in manus impiorum ;” he therefore renders: “ Ht 
 exposuit impits sepulchrunr ejus, et divitti mortem ejus.’ Harris 
 would alter the reading, putting 2M for 12: “He made male- 
 factors His companions.” But the word is certainly in the 
 singular, and the arbitrary change of letters can be vindicated 
 only by such an argument as this expositor uses; see p. 129 
 of his work, — "ni2 WYNN] and with the rich in His death. 
 Vitringa, Henderson, and others take the 1 as adversative, and 
 supply the substantive verb: “But He was with the rich after 
 His death.” Martini and Gesenius regard the clause as parallel 
 to the preceding, and take the } as simply conjunctive. If the 
 nN be taken as a preposition in the first clause, it cannot well 
 be given another sense in the second; and this tells against 
 Dathe’s rendering: “Jn morte sua divitibus similis fuit.” The 
 antithesis would be poor and mean if it were said, that though 
 the righteous Servant suffered death with the wicked, He 
 would after be laid in the splendid sepulchre of the rich. 
 Nor have we here yet come to the rewards and exaltation of 
 the Divine Servant. Here we have an account of His humi- 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 9. 145 
 
 liation ; and this clause, as a further statement, is to be con- 
 nected with the preceding by the simple conjunction. — ΣΝ 
 is from the verb WY, to be rich, more frequently in Hiphil (see 
 Gen. xiv. 23; Prov. x. 4, 22); Wy always signifies riches; 
 and Vv’, which occurs twenty-three times in Scripture, is 
 always rendered, in the LXX., πλούσιος ; Vulg., dives; and in 
 our version, ch, eg. 2 Sam. xii. 1, 2,4: “There were two 
 men, the one rich, and the other poor ;” Ps. xlix. 3: “High and 
 low, rich and poor ;” Prov. xiv. 20: “The rich hath many 
 friends ;” xxii. 2: “The rich and poor meet together.” There 
 is in the word no intimation of character,—it is applied some- 
 times to good, sometimes to bad; but the word simply ex- 
 presses an external condition. Martini compares it with the 
 
 ee 
 
 Arabic le, literally, cespitans, then: peccator, scelestus ; but 
 
 Gesenius says there is no affinity between this Arabic word and. 
 wy. Nevertheless he, too (according to his method here of 
 toning down and generalizing the accurate words of the prophet), 
 takes YY here as parallel with O'ye" in the former clause ; 
 and remarks that, according to the morality of the Hebrews, 
 riches are inseparable from pride and violence, whereas poverty 
 leads to humility and virtue, and he refers to Job xxvul. 19. 
 But this is questionable, and such texts as Prov. 11. 16, vii. 18, 
 xxii. 2, tell on the other side. The learned Ewald reads 
 ΡΝ, an oppressor ; and this suggested change shows that he 
 regarded WY as not parallel with νυ. The change, however, 
 is unsupported; and it is impossible for a Christian interpreter, 
 who regards the SERVANT as the Messiah, to avoid the re- 
 collection of Matt. xxvii. 57: ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος 
 ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας. The habitual use of YY in Scripture 
 forbids our taking it to signify anything but rich, as de- 
 scriptive of outward condition, and without consideration of 
 moral character. — *n2] in His death; the prep. 3, the 
 noun ΠῚ in the plural, and the 3 sing. masc. pron. suffix. 
 Lowth, Martini, and others, finding it difficult to understand 
 
 the word thus, take the 2 to be radical, and the noun to 
 K . 
 
146 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 be the plural construct of 13, α high place, and render it 
 tumuli, or sepulchral mounds. Against this it must be 
 urged, first, that 722 always signifies a high place, and is 
 never used of a sepulchral mound. In Ezek. xliii. 7, the 
 only passage appealed to, the reading is doubtful; some 
 MSS. point 5NiD2, and Henderson renders the word there also 
 in their death. In every other passage the plural ni02 signi- 
 fies high places, not sepulchral mounds. But secondly, it tells 
 against this rendering that the Kamets in 7iD2 is unchange- 
 able, and is retained where the suffix is added, see Lev. xxvi. 
 30; Isa. xxxvi. 7: YNDI-NS, “ His high places.” Ewald adopts 
 this pointing, which is found in three Mss., and renders the 
 word sepulchral mound, in spite of the first-named objection. 
 Gesenius, on the ground mainly of the usage of the word, 
 retains the signification deaths. But how is the plural to 
 be explained? Mi is generally used in the sing.; even 
 in ver. 12, of the Servant’s death, it is sing. In Ezek. 
 xxviii, 10, the plural construct ‘Ni? occurs in an intensive 
 sense, to denote a violent death ; and Henderson thus explains 
 the plural here. Gesenius and others take the plural to denote 
 a collective and not an individual subject, and thus derive an 
 argument in favour of their explanation of the 73; but in 
 this case we should have had the plural suffix 0102, their 
 deaths, whereas the suffix is still singular, his deaths. Hitzig 
 supposes that the sing. suffix Ἷ is assimilated in form to the 
 seemingly plural termination nj, or that it is simply a case of 
 poetic variation ; and remembering that the word in almost 
 all other places is singular, this explanation, which is adopted 
 by Alexander, is perhaps the best. The 3 is by some rendered 
 after, on the authority of Lev. xi. 31; 1 Kings xiii. 31; Esth. 
 ii. 7; but this change is unnecessary, because the expression in 
 his death does not signify in the act of dying, as is clear from 
 the last-named places, but after death has taken place, eg. 
 1 Kings xiii 31: “ When I am dead (‘n23), bury me;” Ps. vi. 5: 
 “In death there is no remembrance of Thee.” We thus arrive at 
 the simple rendering of our English version, in his death,—a 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 9. 147 
 
 rendering confirmed by the LKX. τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, and the 
 Vulgate morte sua. The words find their explanation and 
 fulfilment in the burial of the body of Jesus by Joseph of 
 . Arimathea in his sepulchre. It is not mentioned as an 
 honour or reward, but simply as a fact in the account of the 
 humiliation of the Servant. 
 
 ny pon-xd Sy] though He had done no violence. 5Y is here 
 
 a conjunction, and is taken by many, still by Delitzsch, as 
 equivalent to “WIN-ON, because. To render it thus, would be td 
 introduce an antithesis between the first two clauses, and to 
 make the Servant’s being with the rich in His death, a sort of 
 reward for, or recognition of, His innocence. Thus Delitzsch 
 takes it: “ With a rich man in His martyrdom, because He had 
 done no wrong.’ But keeping in mind the plain words of the 
 prophet in the two clauses, the rendering of by, although (Calvin: 
 quamvis), as vindicated by Martini, whom Gesenius follows and 
 Ewald confirms, is more appropriate. We have not here 1% ὅν, 
 but simply ον, which has the meaning although, notwithstand- 
 ing ; in Job xvi. 17: *823 ὈΡΠ ΝΡ by “ Although there is no 
 injustice in mine hands;” x. 7: anyrby, “ Though Thou knowest ;” 
 
 xXxxiv. 6: 338 ropvionby “ Notwithstanding my just cause, I am 
 counted a liar” (Schultens); Isa, xxviii. 15: ‘W53 “1o-y, “ Not- 
 withstanding the bitterness of my soul” (Ewald). Martini gives 
 
 examples of the Arabic ea being used in the same way. — 
 
 DOM-N?, no violence. DDN, to treat violently, to injure (Jer. 
 xxii 3; Zeph. iii. 8). The noun occurs in lix. 6: “ The act of 
 violence ;” 1x. 18 : “ Violence shall no more be heard in thy land.” 
 It signifies active violation of the law, see Zeph. ui. 4, and is 
 used with words denoting action; so here with MYY, Cf. the 
 LXX. : ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, and 1 Pet. 11. 22 : ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ 
 ἐποίησεν. 
 
 YA MIN ΩΝ neither was there deceit in His mouth. 27) 
 occurs nowhere else in Isaiah ; 1P¥ is used instead, xxviii. 15, 
 xliv. 20. The verb 727, in Kal, signifies to throw (Ex. xv. 1) ; 
 
 TY 
 
148 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 in Piel, to trip up, to deceive, Gen. xxix. 25. The noun occurs 
 in Gen. xxvii. 35: “ Thy brother came with subtlety ;” often 
 in the Psalms, eg. xxiv. 4, xxxiv. 14, and specially with 
 reference to words, eg. Ps. x. 7: “ His mouth is full of deceit ;” 
 xvii. 1 : “ Goeth not out of feigned lips ;” xxxvi. 3: “ The words 
 of his mouth are deceit ;” 111. 6 : “ O thou deceitful tongue!” In 
 like manner here, "22, in his mouth, see ver. 7, and cf. 1 Pet. 
 ii. 22, where the LXX. version is quoted, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν 
 τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. Applying the prophecy to Christ, the 
 apostle had in his mind the witness which He bore concerning 
 Himself that He was “ the Son of God,” and he therefore uses 
 the LXX. εὑρέθη (in the sense which εὑρίσκεσθαι always has, 
 as distinct from εἶναι, to be found or proved, see 1 Cor. iv. 2; 
 Gal. 11. 17) with reference to the trial of Christ before His 
 unjust judges. 
 
 VERSE 10. 
 Ove OWATON YO INST Yan mim 
 YN ΠῚΠῚ POM) OD) TI 2 INT Wal 
 : ΤΙ: 
 ΤΧΧ.: Καὶ Κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς 
 πληγῆς" ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα 
 μακρόβιον" καὶ βούλεται Κύριος ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀφελεῖν. 
 VULGATE: Ht Dominus volwit conterere eum in wnfirmitate ; 
 
 Sst posuerit pro peccato animam suam, videbit semen longevum, 
 et voluntas Domini in manu ejus dirigetur. 
 
 ona iNd7 YBN Ti] Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He 
 hath put Him to grief. The conjunction is adversative and 
 resumptive, pointing back to, and resuming the affirmation at, 
 the end of verse 6. It was men who inflicted the suffering, 
 but the supreme causa effiiciens was God, who made the wrath 
 of men subservient to His own merciful purpose. The suffer- 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 10. 149 
 
 ing of His Servant was to be the way to glory, the first great 
 step in the accomplishment of the divine plan of salvation. — 
 yan, 3 sing. mas. pret. Kal. The verb is used in both portions 
 of the book, i. 11: “TJ delight not in the blood of bullocks,” etc. ; 
 xiii, 17, xlii, 21: O° ips ped yan nim, “Τῆς Lord is well 
 pleased for His righteousness’ sake ; He will magnify,” etc.,—a 
 construction similar to that which we find here. 1834, infin. 
 Piel with 3 sing. mas. pron. suffix, to bruise Him ; the fut. Piel 
 occurs in Isa. 111. 15: “ Ye beat my people to pieces,” “DY ISDTA ; 
 the Niphal part., in lv. 15: “ The bruised or contrite ones ;” 
 the Pual part., in verse 5, which is referred to here: “ He was 
 bruised for our iniquities.’ Some have taken i821 for i837, 
 from S24, with Dagesh euphonic; and Storr, quoted by Martini, 
 translates : “ Dominus delectatus est contritio suo, quem infirmum 
 reddidit;” but this would involve a harsh ellipsis. The Vulgate 
 takes it as an infinitive, and renders it rightly conterere eum; 
 so do the LXX., but they take it as from 827="31, and 
 render καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς πληγῆς. --- Onn, He hath put 
 Him to grief, 3 sing. pret. Hiphil of non ; the noun occurs in 
 verses 3 and 4. This is usually taken as an Aramaic form, 
 the yod appearing instead of the 1; Kimchi, however, explains 
 it as the yod of the Hiphil for monn, the 7 or & being apoco- 
 pated. Hitzig takes it as a noun with the article, for ona: 
 but Delitzsch rightly objects that the article here would be 
 out of place, and, if prefixed, could not obliterate the funda- 
 mental character of the noun. Yet the Vulgate renders in 
 infirmitate, joining the word to what follows. ‘The change of 
 tense is just what we see in the passage quoted above, xlii. 
 21. See 1 Kings xxii. 34: monn, “Tam deadly wounded ;” 
 Jer xivis Lf: nen naa, “ A grievous blow ;” hence Vitringa 
 renders the word here lethali infirmitate illum affliait. What © 
 follows shows that the reference is to the dying sufferings of 
 the Servant, see Matt. xxvi. 38, xxvii. 46. The Babylonian 
 Talmud (Zract. Sanhedrin, fol. 98) contains the following 
 early Jewish witness concerning the suffering Servant : 
 “ What is the sign whereby to know the Messiah? He sits 
 
150 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 among the poor and those afflicted with sickness.” And 
 again: “Leprous is His name (x1), as it is written in Isa. 
 1111. 4. See Wiinsche, Die Leiden des Messias, 58, 63. 
 
 ‘vip ovis Ὁ ΓΝ] When Thou shalt make His soul an offering 
 
 for guilt. ON here denotes time, according to Gesenius, as in 
 
 xxiv. 13: “ When the vintage is done ;? iv. 4: “ When the’ 
 
 Lord shall have washed,’ etc. E. Reuss (Les Prophetes, ii. 278) 
 
 renders: “Ah! tu ne donneras pas sa vie en expiation !” taking | 
 
 ON as implying a strong negative: “Si tw donnes...! Cest-a- 
 dire: tu ne donneras pas!” We thus find O8 used, ey. Ps. 
 vii. 4-6; Job xxxi. 5-40; but it is too much to say that this 
 is “une formule d’adjuration extrémement fréquente dans 
 ΤΑ. T. ;” and thus to take it here would disturb the grammatical 
 connection of the clause, and contradict the plain affirmations 
 of the, preceding and following verses, that the Servant’s life 
 was given as an expiation; ¢g. “quand il fut mort,” verse 9 ; 
 and “il s'est livré 4 la mort, il portdt les péchés de plusieurs,” 
 verse 12. The use of ON, as in Ps. vii. 4-6, we should rather 
 deseribe as a rare ellipsis, the rendering being still 7/, with an 
 imprecation following. See Ps. xlvi. 21, and Hupfeld ὧν loc. 
 —nvn, 2 sing. mas. or 3 sing. fem. fut. Kal of DY, to place, 
 to set, to make; see iii. 7, ΧΙ]. 18,19. Our version takes the 
 word as the second person, making Jehovah the implied sub- 
 ject; but against this it is urged that Jehovah is named in 
 the third person in the beginning and in the end of the verse, 
 and that the introduction of the second would be a sudden 
 transition. In the book Sohar, as Doederlein and Martini 
 observe, O° is proposed to be read instead of own; but there 
 is no other warrant for this. Delitzsch takes 1W5) as the sub- 
 ject, and DWM as fem. to agree with it, “if His soul offered an 
 ovx;” but it is objected, that it is contrary to Hebrew usage 
 to say that the wi: offers a sacrifice, and not is offered; this, 
 however, is hardly correct, see Lev. ii. 1. Our translators 
 in the margin suggested the reading which Delitzsch adopts, 
 “when His soul shall make an offering ;” still the context in 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 10. ΠῚ 
 
 verse 12 represents the ¥52 as that which is offered: “ He poured 
 out His soul unto death;” and in Matt. xx. 28 we have the 
 similar expression, in keeping with O. T. representation, “ To 
 give His life a ransom for many.” The Apostle Paul evidently 
 had this passage in his mind when he said, 2 Cor. v. 21: “ He,” 
 ie. God the Father, “ hath made Him to be sin for us,’ ὑπὲρ 
 ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν. We are therefore brought back to 
 the rendering which takes nDwn as the 2 sing. mas. Gesenius 
 allows that this rendering is possible, and observes that such 
 sudden changes of person are not uncommon; see eg. 111, 14, 
 15. Compare 1 Sam. xix. 5: “He did put His life in His 
 hand,” and chapter xli. 15: “ Thow shalt make (Ὁ 11) the hills 
 as chaff?’ In all places where the 3 fem. fut. of DY occurs, 
 it is written DWM with 1 (Ex. ii, 3; Judg. iv. 21; 1 Sam. xix. 
 13, xxv.18; 2 Sam. xiii. 19; 2 Kings ix. 30; Esth. viii. 2); 
 and wherever else the fuller form OA occurs, it is the 2 
 sing. mas. (Gen. vi. 16, xliv. 2; Ex. xxi. 1; Deut. xvii. 15, 
 xxii. 8; 1 Sam. x. 19; 1 Kings xx. 34; Job vii. 12, xxxviii. 
 33; Isa. xli. 15; Ezek. xxi. 25, xxiv. 17); indeed, the apoc. 
 form O0¥A is found only once for the 2 sing. mas., viz. 1 Sam. 
 ix. 20. Another consideration against taking the verb as the 
 3 sing. fem., is the fact that the victim offered as an DUN was 
 always a male, — OWN] a guilt-offering, from OWS, to be guilty, 
 Lev. iv. 13, 22, 27, v. 2-4, 17, 19; the noun occasionally 
 signifies simply guilt, Gen. xxvi. 10, Ps. lxviii. 22, Prov. 
 xiv. 9, but usually guilt-offering. It occurs twenty-six times 
 in Leviticus, where it is distinguished from NNN, sin-offering. 
 Upon the distinction between the two, see note at the end of 
 . the chapter. The nw was a sacrifice for individual sin, hence 
 the more frequent use of ¥5} in connection with it (see Lev. 
 v. 14, 17); it was to be a ram (X) of a certain value (τιμῆς), 
 and was thus to make satisfaction or amends for the guilt. As 
 in verse 5 the Divine Servant is represented as ὦ sin-offering, 
 His death being an expiation, so here He is described as a guilt- 
 offering, His death being a satisfaction. — i¥52] His soul, not 
 simply for the pronoun, but with special reference to the nature 
 
152 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 of the DW, which was the guilt-offering in the case of individual 
 sin (Lev. v.17; Num. v. 6). Compare Matt. xx. 28: δοῦναι 
 τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον. 
 
 yur ONY] He shall see [His] seed. The LXX. and Vulgate 
 connect these words with those which follow: 0%* 78}, ὄψεται 
 σπέρμα μακρόβιον, videbit semen longevum.  Lowth adopts 
 this ; but Vitringa, Dathe, Gesenius, and most others take both 
 verbs to refer to the Servant as their subject. In xl. 24, it is 
 said of the princes and judges of the earth: “ Yea, they shall 
 not be sown ; in 1. 4, we read of “a seed of evil-doers,’ see 
 xiv. 20, lvii. 4; and, on the other hand, in liv. 3: “ Thy seed 
 shall inherit the Gentiles,’ and lxi. 9: “ The seed which the 
 Lord hath blessed.” As to Abraham (Gen. xxviii. 14), as to 
 David (see Jer. xxxili. 22), so to the Servant here; cf. Ps. 
 xxl. 30: “A seed shall serve Him ;” and Ps. ii. 12; Isa. liv. 
 1, 2, 1x. 8; Rev. vii. 9. The expression: He shall sce, implies 
 the Servant’s life after death, His resurrection ; cf. Gen. lxviii. 
 11: “God hath showed me thy seed.” 
 
 Oy 78") He shall prolong [His] days. 8}, 3 sing. mas. 
 fut. Hiphil of 728. The expression often occurs in Deutero- 
 nomy, eg. Deut. iv. 26, 40, v. 16, 33, vi. 2, xi. 9, xvii. 20, xxii. 
 7, xxv. 15, xxx. 18, xxxii. 47. Though the Divine Servant die, 
 _yet shall He live; His days shall be prolonged, as Calvin says, 
 perpetuo vivat ; cf. Rev.i. 18: ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς, καὶ 
 ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ---!Ἶ nov) ima nin yan] 
 and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. 5" 
 refers to 7 in the beginning of the verse. Here an admirable 
 turn is given to the word. “Jt pleased the Lord to bruise 
 -Him ;” but God’s ultimate will and pleasure in His death was 
 the bringing many sons to glory, eternal life to the world, 
 and this pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. Cf. 
 xlvi. 10, lxii. 4.—'T often denotes the instrumentality or 
 ministry; the law was given by the hand of Moses (Num. 
 xxxvi. 13); the Lord spake by the hand of Isaiah (xx. 2); it 
 is often used in Isaiah of God’s active power, v. 12, 25, ix. 11, 
 16, 20, xl. 2,1. 2, lix. 1. mex, 3 sing. mas. fut, Kal of 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 11. 1538 
 
 nby, “to move forward,” procedere, pervadere, and hence to 
 advance prosperously, Ps. xlv. 5. Usually in Hiphil, xlvii. 15: 
 “ He shall make His way prosperous ;” lv. 11: “ It shall accom- 
 plish that which I please, and it shall prosper,’ etc. See the 
 similar expression concerning Joseph in Gen. xxxix. 3. Martini 
 translates this last clause in the past tense, evidently to recon- 
 cile the statement with his interpretation ; but the only ground 
 for doing so, which he suggests, is the verb Sap» at the end of 
 the following verse. But Sap» may be taken as future too, 
 and there is no vau conversive. 
 
 Taking the verse as a whole, it sets forth (a) the origin, (0) 
 the nature, and (0) the result of the Saviour’s sufferings. 
 Taking the last clause by itself, we have (1) the divine com- 
 placency in the purpose of human salvation, and (2) the suc- 
 cessful issue of that purpose as administered by the Messiah. 
 
 VERSE 11. 
 Py SAT. yak ANT wa ov 
 SDA) NIT ONIBA ODT? TY PTS 
 
 LXX.: ‘Azo τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς 
 καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει, δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, 
 καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει. 
 
 VULGATE: Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus, videbit et Pistrea 
 bitur ; in scientia sua justifieabtt ipse justus servus meus multos, 
 
 et ἐπι μένα eorum upse ρογέαντί. 
 
 iw) POY] Because of the travail of His soul. 2 for {®, part, 
 apart, from; see Gen. xiii. 14: DIPBA-N m8, “ Look from the 
 place ;” Num. xxiii. 9 : UNIS DY NID, “ From the top of the 
 rocks I see him.” The preposition may denote the place or 
 time of departure from, or the cause or root from which ; 
 Calvin: e labore; Vitringa: propter; Delitzsch: because of; 
 Gesenius: free from; Martini, Rosenmiiller, and Hender- 
 
154 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH, 
 
 son: after; see Hos. vi. 2, 1.6. “from the time of.’ The 
 prophet’s strain from this point becomes triumphant—after 
 the sufferings, glory. Therefore he says iw) Dyn, referring 
 back to the first portion of verse 10. POY, const. of ony, TOVOS, 
 ὀδύνη, μῶλος, labor, molestia, erumna, often in Eccles., and 
 . sometimes with a moral sense, like πονήρος, from πόνος, see 
 x. 1, lix. 4; here qualified by iv}, and thus described as 
 agony of soul, clearly referring to the making His soul a guilt- 
 offering in verse 10, the cross being the point from which He 
 looks and is satisfied, or the root out of which His triumph 
 springs; see John xii. 27: νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται. We 
 not seldom find the noun boy side by side with the verb 78), | 
 Num. xxiii, 21; Ps. xxv. 18; Jer. xx.'18.—N] He shall 
 see. Martini objects, that the verb nx7 has always a noun 
 joined to it as its direct object; and hence some have sug- 
 gested to supply 31D, good ; others YN, as in verse 10. But 
 we need not go beyond Isaiah for examples of AN used as 
 here, viz, xxix, 18: Meson Oy ‘ry qwindr SDR; ΧΙ, 20: 
 “ That they may see and know” (YIN IN) ; xlix. 7 : “ Kings shall 
 see and arise ;” lx. 5: “ They shall see, and flow together.” So 
 here, “ He shall see and be satisfied.” As in lx. 5, the reference 
 of mx is to the full promise of the preceding verse: “ He shall 
 see His seed,’ etc.; but it is the prophet’s manner to express 
 himself thus: “ He shall sce this, and be satisfied.” —yat"] He 
 shall be satisfied, 3 sing. fut. Kal of yaw, to be satisfied. Usually 
 with 53x, often in Deut. (eg. xiv. 29); Ruth ii. 14; Ps. 
 xxii. 27: “ The meek shall eat and be satisfied ;” here: “ He shall 
 see, he shall be satisfied.” The word occurs i. 14. 1x) 20} 
 xxiii. 18, xliv. 16, lv. 2, lviii 10, 11, xvi. 11. See Job 
 x. 15; Ps. lxiii. 6: “ My soul shall be satisfied ;” Ps. xvii. 15: 
 “T shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness.” It 
 thus denotes the highest spiritual satisfaction. Symmachus, 
 Aquila, and Theodotion join the verb with §nYI3, ἐμπλησθή- 
 σεται (Symm.: χορτασθήσεται) ἐν TH γνώσει αὐτοῦ; but, as 
 Gesenius observes, there is no ground for departing from the 
 Masoretic division of the words as indicated by the accents. 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 11. 155 
 
 iny12] By His knowledge. Martini takes this to mean the 
 knowledge of God, piety; but, as God is here the speaker 
 (12), the pronoun more appropriately refers to the Servant. 
 But is it per cognitionem sui, or per cognitionem suam, “ by the 
 knowledge of Him, or by His knowledge”? Vitringa and Heng- 
 stenberg adopt the former, and Calvin renders: “ Doctrina sua 
 aut cognitione sui,’ thus combining both. Gesenius and 
 Delitzsch adopt the latter, and this accords with the word as 
 it occurs in Prov. ili. 20: “ By His knowledge (ΝΞ) the depths 
 are broken up,” where the word is parallel with 722h2 717. in 
 verse 10. NY12 occurs also in Prov. xi. 9: “ Through know- 
 _ ledge shall the just be delivered ;” see also Prov. xxii. 17: 
 “Apply thy heart to my knowledge,’ and Hab. ii. 4: PMY 
 mn ΠΡΟΣ, Thus no further rendering than “by His know- 
 
 se 
 
 ledge” is warranted by the Hebrew; but the word may be 
 explained as Calvin does: doctrina sua, and is illustrated by 
 Matt. xi. 27: “ No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he 
 to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Compare Col. ii. 3. 
 = Da? ΣΝ pry ΡΝ] shall my righteous Servant justify the. 
 many. Lowth and others omit the adj. PY as spurious, on 
 account of its place before the substantive, and three codd. 
 omit it, but all the ancient versions retain it. Houbigant 
 would make it accusative, justificabit justum. The unusual 
 position of the adj. gives emphasis to it (Ges. Gram. sec. 112), 
 the Righteous One, my Servant. The meaning must not be 
 generalized, as Martini suggests, who takes pq¥ as equivalent 
 to pw, salvum prestare, beare. The adj. and the verb have 
 here their distinctive sense, and embody the doctrine fully 
 developed in the Epistle to the Romans. — Pp", 3 sing. fut. 
 Hiphil of PS, to be right, righteous ; in Hiphil, to make right and 
 to declare right, δικαιοῦν, to justify. The Hebrew causative 
 expresses both ideas, and they are combined in the O. T. 
 doctrine of forgiveness of sins, eg. in Ps. li. 1,2: ‘yen nnn, 
 “ Blot out (dele) my transgressions: wash me (DA2), cleanse me 
 (ΠΟ. from my sin.’ Immediately upon tle obliteration of 
 transgression is the cleansing ; and both these are included in 
 
156 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 the Heb. ΡΠ, to justify. In a forensic sense it signifies, to 
 account righteous, to absolve ; eg. Ex. xxiii, 7: “J will not 
 justify the wicked ;” Isa. v. 23: “ Which justify the wicked for 
 reward.” Here those justified are not righteous; they are 
 sinners, as is clear from the words which immediately follow, 
 where their iniquities are named. But though sinners, the 
 righteous Servant justifies them, and is righteous in doing so, 
 because He bears their iniquities. The words thus most 
 clearly embody the Pauline doctrine of justification (Rom. 
 111. 24): δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν TH αὐτοῦ χάριτι, διὰ τῆς ἀπολυ- 
 τρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Calvin well says: “ Porro 
 doctrina obtinende justitie, quam tradit Christus, non alia est 
 quam ipsius cognitio. Hac autem est fides, dum amplectimur 
 beneficium mortis ejus, ac plene in wpso conguiescimus.” See 
 Rom. viii. 3, x. 8, and Isa. xlv. 25. 0°72] the many; as to 
 the use of 5 here, which Martini supposes ex Syriasmo notam 
 accusativi sustinere, Gesenius says: “ Persepe verba Hiphil 
 conjunguntur sq. τ st aliqua dandi seu concedendi potestas in vis 
 inest” (Thes. 728). The Kamets indicates the article, and the 
 word answers to the τοῖς πολλοῖς of Rom. v. 19. 
 
 :Dap) si onsiyy] For their iniquities He shall bear. The } 
 here is causal, introducing the reason why by His knowledge 
 the righteous Servant justifies. On Mi, see verses 5 and 6 ; 
 the suffix D— refers to p29), the many, and the whole expres- 
 sion answers to “ the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us 
 all” in verse 6. There is an emphatic antithesis between the 
 O— and the wi, THEIR iniquities HE shall bear, clearly denoting 
 substitution. — 530), 3 sing. mas. fut. Kal of D3D, to carry a 
 burden ; it occurs in verse 4, carried our sorrows. Here there 
 is no reason for taking the word in the past tense, as Martini 
 does ; as parallel with the rest of the sentence it is future. 
 Still it can hardly be said to refer, as Delitzsch suggests, “ to 
 something to be done after the completion of the work to 
 which He is called in this life.” The reference is to the 
 bearing, spoken of in verses 4-6, as the Apostle Peter ex- 
 presses it (1 Pet. ii. 24): ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγ- 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 11. 157 
 
 κεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον. The noun bab, burden, 
 occurs in Isa. ix. 4, x. 27, xiv. 25; and nina, burdens, in Ex. 
 i. 11, ii. 11, v. 4, 5, vi. 6, 7. The usual verb in Leviticus 
 is Nt), as in verse 4; but in Lam. v. 7 we have the similar 
 expression, 222 DNNIY WMI, we have borne their iniquities. 
 The verb. occurs in chapter xlvi. 4 (twice), 7. It answers to 
 the Syriac -S4, to bear; see Matt. xx. 12; Luke xiv. 27; 
 John xvi. 12; Gal. vi. 2; and to the Greek βαστάξω, the 
 word by which it is rendered here by Aquila (Theod. and 
 Symm.: ὑπήνεγκεν). Martini, followed by Gesenius, compares 
 
 the verb with the Arabic ,, 4, burden, There is nothing in it 
 
 expressing or implying ¢o remove or to bear away ; see Magee 
 On the Atonement, i. 276 sqqg. Gesenius gives as its root 
 meaning, schleppen, to trail or drag (see John xix. 17). 
 
 The transgressor’s sin immediately begins to work its own 
 punishment in him; guilt clings to him; and that alienation 
 from God has begun -which must continue as long as the sin 
 is upon him, and which, if it be not cancelled, must be a 
 never-ending misery. God’s wrath, which is the outgo of 
 holy love against sin, is upon him. Now, according to the 
 ceremonial law, the sin-stricken Israelite came bearing his own 
 iniquity to the altar, and leading thereto an innocent victim, 
 a bullock or a lamb, whose life he offers as a substitute for 
 his own; thus confessing that the wages of his sin is death ; 
 that his own conscience, as well as divine and holy love, 
 demanded an expiation; and that the common basis and 
 fellowship of life involved the possibility of substitution. 
 When within the precincts of the sanctuary, he was to put 
 his hand, or rather to press (720) his hand, heavily (Ps. Ixxxviil. 
 8) upon the head of the animal (Lev. 1. 4, iv. 24). This act 
 was to be performed by the offerer himself; it could not be 
 entrusted to any one else; never to a priest, except when the 
 sacrifice was presented for the priesthood collectively (Ex. 
 xxix. 10, 15, 19); for the nation collectively, the elders were 
 to do it, and on the day of atonement the high priest. This 
 
158 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 act was designed to indicate the personal and intimate relation 
 between the sinner and the victim. We read (Lev. i. 4): 
 “ Tt shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.” The 
 sinner had then with his own hands to perform the act of 
 immolation, that the offering might be clearly marked as his 
 own. The receiving of the blood as it streamed from the 
 fatal wound, and the sprinkling of it, were the exclusive work 
 of the priests. This ritual must be kept in view in the 
 explanation of the words: “ Upon Him was laid the iniquity 
 of us all; He shall bear their iniquities.” It finds its fulfil- 
 ment in the atoning death of the Divine Servant, and the 
 truths it embodied are fully met and satisfied thereby. 
 
 VERSE 12. 
 pom Byauy-ny) 0312 ὙΓΡΌΝ 15? 
 =ny) wa πη myn way non Sow 
 myweb) Nv) ὈΞΎ ΝΠ NT yD) OVW 
 | Ἐν 
 
 LXX.: Διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλούς, καὶ τῶν 
 ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῖ σκῦλα" ἀνθ᾽ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη, καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν 
 ἀνήνεγκεν, καὶ διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη. 
 
 VuLGaTE: 1660 dispertiam οἱ plurimos, et fortiwm dividet 
 spolia, pro eo quod tradidit in mortem anmam suam, et cum 
 sceleratis reputatus est, et wpse peccata multorum tulit, et pro 
 transgressoribus rogavit. 
 
 Heb. ix. 28: Οὕτως ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ 
 πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 Here the prophet describes, by metaphors drawn from 
 human conquests, the triumph of the Divine Servant’s victory. 
 Compare Ps. lxviii. 12—19 and Eph. iv. 11. 
 
 praya ibpny 125] Therefore will I divide Him a portion in 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 12. 159 
 
 . the many. pany, 1 sing. fut. Piel of pon, to be smooth (xli. 7), 
 to divide by lot, smooth stones being used (Ges.); hence pen, 
 portion, either inheritance of land or food; see Ps. xvi. 4: 
 “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup.” 
 Gesenius, Alexander, Henderson, Delitzsch, and others adopt 
 this rendering. Luther, following the LXX. and Vulgate, 
 renders: “ Therefore will I apportion to Him the many.” In 
 support of this is the fact that 50°31 occurs in the preceding 
 verse, and again in this verse; and it seems appropriate to 
 render it alike in all three cases. The twofold objection 
 against this, is the parallelism of this clause with the follow- 
 ing, and the preposition 2. Martini, who renders, “ Potentes 
 tanquam sortem et assignabo, ” refers to Job xxxix. 17: porwr 
 n’a32 mp, “Neither hath He imparted to her understanding,’ 
 where pon is construed with 3 (see 1 Kings xii. 16). This 
 signifies, according to Delitzsch, to have a portion in; and this 
 rendering gives a good sense, and leaves the parallelism with 
 _ the clause following undisturbed: “Therefore will I assign Him 
 a portion in the many,” 1.6. the many shall be the portion allotted 
 to Him. — ΔΉ ΜΠ] and with the strong. Martini takes nN 
 as the sign of the accusative, validos tanquam predam, “The 
 strong as a spoil shall He divide among the sharers in His 
 victory.” This involves an ellipsis, and it is more in keeping 
 with the immediate context—where NX again occurs, and in 
 the sense of with (O'yvE"NN})—to take it as a preposition ; 
 see Prov. xvi. 19. The adj. DY occurs side by side with 
 ὈΞῪ in chapter viii. 7, strong and many; see xli. 21, lx. 22. 
 — >>vi pbn’] shall He divide the spoil; a frequent expression ; 
 see ix. 3: “As men rejoice when they divide the spoil ;” 
 xxxill 23; Gen. xlix. 27; Ex. xv. 9; Judg. v. 30. In Prov. 
 xvi, 19, the expression occurs with the prep. NN as here: 
 “Than to divide the spoil with the proud.” Luther renders: 
 “ He shall have the strong for a prey;” Calvin: “Cum robustis 
 spolia dividet.” See Luke xi. 21 and Ool. ii. 15; and ef. 
 chapter xlix. 24, 25. ---- Ws nnA] for in that. The expression 
 occurs Deut. xxi. 14, xxii. 29, xxviii. 47, 48 ; 1 Sam. xxvi. 21; 
 
160 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 2 Kings xxii. 17, followed by the answering 1; Jer. xxix. 
 
 19, 107; Ezek. xxxvi. 34 (whereas). — vip nits myn] He 
 
 poured out His soul unto the death, 712, 3 sing. mas. pret. 
 Hiphil of ™y, effundere, evacuare ; chapter xxxil. 15: “ Until 
 the Spirit be poured upon us;” iii. 17, xxii. 6. See Ps. exli. 8: 
 WD) TWH Os “ Pour not out my soul.” Martini quotes similar 
 expressions from Arabic poetry, and the expression in Judg. 
 VHS): mind wind HIN, “ Tanquam rem vilis pretii abjecit vitam.” 
 Alexander takes the reference to be to the shedding of blood, 
 Gen. ix. 6; but the word used there and in Leviticus is J5v, 
 to pour, used in Hithp. with w5), Lam.ii.12. The expression 
 reminds us of the apostle’s words, Phil. ii. 7: ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε ; 
 John x. 15: τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι; Matt. xxvi. 38 : ἡ ψυχή 
 μου περίλυπος ἐστιν ἕως θανάτου; Luke xxiii. 46: ἐξέπνευ- 
 σεν. --- ΠΡΟ] unto the death; see Prov. xxiv. 11, drawn unto 
 death ; Ps. exviii. 18, 2) Nd ΠΡΟ. JOE. KV  τυπ QBs 
 xliii, 11; Ezek. xxxi. 14.— 202 D'yv/a"ny)] and was numbered 
 with the transgressors,—most expositors agree in taking NS 
 here as a preposition. — D'yws, act. part. Kal of YB, used as a 
 noun ; see chapter 1. 28, xlvi. 8, lxvi. 24. The verb means, 
 to break faith with, to apostatize, to revolt (Arabic (m4), either 
 against God and His covenant,—transgression,—or against man 
 and social law,—/felony. It is stronger than Non, and denotes 
 evil-doing in positive violation of law, Ps. xix. 14, though 
 often weakened into the general idea of sin; see Ps. xxxii. 1, 5, 
 Ἢ]. 3, 5. — 222] He was numbered, 3 sing. mas. pret. Niphal 
 of 739, to number; Ixv. 12; Gen. xii. 16. Hengstenberg 
 and Alexander would give the Niphal here its reflexive force, 
 numbered Himself. The versions, however, mostly render it 
 passive,—LXX.: ἐλογίσθη; Aquila and Symm.: ἠριθμήθη͵--- 
 except Theodotion: καὶ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀπέσχετο;---ἃ rendering 
 which the preposition forbids. Delitzsch renders: “He let Him- 
 self be reckoned.” The words are quoted in Mark xv. 28: καὶ 
 ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, “ Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη." 
 And in Luke they are given as the quotation of Jesus Him- 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 12. 161 
 
 self, xxii. 37: “For I say unto you, that this that is written 
 must yet be accomplished in me, And He was reckoned with the 
 transgressors : for the things concerning me have an end.” — 
 
 x) DST NON Nw] He Himself bare the sin of the many. The 
 ἡ answers to the NA preceding. 80M, in its primary sense, is 
 a weaker word than Y¥B. Its root signifies, to slip, to make a 
 
 false step, Prov. xix. 2; Arabic bs, to miss in shooting; see 
 
 Gen. xli. 9. But it is used for sim generally, and even for 
 glaring offences,—murder (2 Sam. xii. 13), blood-red sins (Isa. 
 i. 1). — ΝΣ signifies to bear; see Gen. iv. 13: “ My iniquity 
 (2) as greater than I can bear ;” Ex. xxviii. 48 : “ That they 
 bear not iniquity;” Lev. v. 1, vii. 18, xvii. 16, xxix. 8, 17, 
 xx. 17, 20, xxii. 9, xxiv. 15 (inn NbD); Num. v. 31, ix. 13: 
 “That man shall bear his sin,” xiv. 34, xviii. 22, 32; Ezek. 
 iv. 5, 6, xvii. 20, xxiii 49. The expressions, therefore, tv 
 bear one’s iniquity, to bear one’s sin, in the sense of a burden 
 of guilt, are frequent in the Hebrew Scriptures, and would 
 primarily convey this idea to the Hebrew mind. See Ps. 
 vii. 17. It is true that the verb xix also expresses the idea 
 of bearing away, and this with reference to sin; because the 
 Israelite, bearing his sin with his sacrifice to the sanctuary, 
 there to offer the victim, had his sin thus cancelled and his 
 guilt removed. The ceremonial of the Day of Atonement con- 
 firmed this, because the scapegoat was “to bear upon him all 
 their tniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. xvi. 22); but 
 even here the words roy xi’ convey the idea of a burden 
 borne. The word, however, thus came to mean not only the 
 means of forgiveness, but forgiveness itself; and thus we find 
 it used in Ps: xxxii. 1: YB “WE, and verse 5: ἣν nxv3 
 ‘nxn. It is worthy of observation that another word some- 
 times meaning forgiveness, denotes also expiation, viz. 123, to 
 make atonement, to eapiate, NBD being the cover of the Ark, 
 the Mercy-seat,—‘Aaary prov, propiatorium. Again, noo, tollere, 
 to bear away, to forgive, LXX. ἱλάσκομαι, corresponds to NY) ; 
 
 and "3, to cover, to forgive, corresponds to 722. Thus the 
 L 
 
162 COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. 
 
 Hebrew modes of expressing forgiveness were all of them 
 penetrated with the ideas of expiation and atonement, and 
 bear witness to the depth and universality of the conviction 
 that “without shedding of blood is no remission of sin.” The 
 prophet’s words are quoted in Heb. ix. 27: ““O Χριστὸς ἅπαξ 
 προσενεχθεὶς εἰς TO πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. ᾿Ανήνεγκεν 
 is the word used by the LXX.; Aquila: ἦρεν ; Symm., Theod.: 
 ἀνελάβετο. --- 23) Dyed] and made intercession for the trans- 
 gressors. 35, 3 sing. mas. fut. Hiphil of 328, ἐντυγχάνειν, 
 to meet ; see verse 6. Followed by ?, it signifies intercedere ; 
 see Gen. xxii. 8. ory, entreat for me. Followed by 3, 
 to «intercede with; see Jer. vu. 16: *D-YION-EN, “« Neither 
 
 > 
 
 make intercession to me;” xxvil. 18: “Now make wnterces- 
 sion to the Lord ;” xxvii. 25: “ Make intercession to the king.” 
 Isaiah, lix. 16, wondered that there was no intercessor (3°35). 
 The verb here is usually taken as preterite in time, because 
 closely connected (by the 1) with the perfects immediately 
 preceding ; so the LXX. and the Vulgate and our ‘version, 
 Martini, Gesenius, Henderson, Delitzsch. Alexander retains 
 the future, as describing a work still going on. The words, 
 indeed, found a primary fulfilment in the prayer of John xvi. 
 20, and in that of Luke xxiii. 34: “ Father, forgive them ;” but 
 they are still realized according to Rom. vii. 34; Heb. 
 vii. 25, ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1. As to the repetition of D'yws, 
 Calvin says: “INIQUOS nominatim exprimit, ut sciamus nobis 
 certa fiducia confugiendum esse ad Crucem Christi, quum horrore 
 peccatt perculst sumus.” “Every word stands here,” says 
 Delitzsch, “as if written beneath the cross on Golgotha.” 
 “Christ is to His church,” says Calvert, “a perfect Redeemer ; 
 there are that would join with Him other intercessors, Mary 
 and the saints. We need but One in the court of heaven; 
 no more are mentioned in the word of God.” “Jesus Christ,” 
 says Manton, “is, and is alone, the Intercessor for poor sinners; 
 tis the business of His endless life.” “ Wherefore He is able 
 - to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing 
 He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” 
 
i a 
 
 --- 4... -- - 
 
 ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SIN-OFFERINGS AND 
 TRESPASS-OFFERINGS IN LEVITICUS. 
 
 (OME would deprive this question of all further interest or 
 import, by asserting that we have in the interchange of 
 
 the terms before us merely one indication among many of the 
 fragmentary character and late origin of the Mosaic legislation, 
 the difference of name arising from difference of authorship 
 and difference in the time at which the sections wherein the 
 words respectively occur were written. But upon examination 
 it will be found that whatever room for doubt there may be 
 concerning other parts of the Book of Leviticus, there is none 
 touching the sections wherein the details concerning sin- and 
 trespass-offerings occur, because these sections bear internal 
 marks of having been committed to writing during the life of 
 Moses. It was to be expected that the Levitical laws should 
 bear upon the face of them a colouring or wording derived 
 from the circumstances of the time when they were committed 
 to writing as a code. If we meet with laws which in their 
 entire scope correspond to a\state-ef-things which no longer 
 existed after the death of Moses, it is in the highest degree 
 probable that such laws not only proceeded originally from 
 Moses, but were committed to writing, in the form in which 
 we have them, in the Mosaic age. For even the recorder of 
 traditional laws would accommodate them to the altered cir- 
 cumstances of the people for whom they were intended. Now 
 
164 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 there are in Leviticus (as well as in Exodus and Numbers) 
 several laws which correspond only to the circumstances of 
 the Israelites when they were still sojourning in the wilderness 
 and crowded together in tents, and to these sections the laws 
 concerning the sin- and trespass-offerings belong. For example, 
 regarding the sin-offering, in Lev. iv. 11, 12 we read: “The 
 skin of the bullock and his flesh... even the whole bullock, 
 shall the priest carry forth without the camp (nana ὙΠΟ Ομ) 
 unto ἃ clean place.” Again, at verse 21, concerning the sin- 
 offering for the whole people: “He shall carry forth the 
 bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the 
 first bullock.” See also vi. 11, viii. 17. Uf this had been 
 first written after the time of Moses, it would have sounded 
 strange in the ears of an Israelite living in Palestine, for there 
 without the camp would no longer have any meaning. In this 
 series of laws, moreover, the priests are repeatedly referred to, 
 not generally only, but individually, as Aaron and his sons, or 
 the sons of Aaron the priests (111. 2, 5, 13, vi. 9, 14, 16, 20, 
 25, vil. 10, 31, 33, 34); and this would hardly have been the 
 case if these laws were composed at a time when Aaron and 
 his sons no longer constituted the priesthood. Again, in the 
 law concerning the Day of Atonement, we read (Lev. xvi. 20, 
 26): “ Aaron shall send the live goat by the hand of an 
 appointed man into the wilderness ; and he that takes away the 
 goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, 
 and then he may come into the camp.” Had these directions 
 been written down for the first time when Israel no longer 
 sojourned in the desert, but in Canaan; when they no longer 
 lived in camps, but in towns; when Aaron had been long 
 time dead,—they would have been couched in language suitable 
 to the circumstances of the time. The same remarks apply 
 to the laws concerning leprosy, where both the sin- and the 
 trespass-offerings are enjoined. Thus xiii. 46: “ Without the 
 camp shall his habitation be ;” xiv. 3: “ The priest shall go 
 forth out of the camp, and shall examine the leper ; and he that 
 is cleansed (verse 8) shall come into the camp, and tarry abroad 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 165 
 
 out of his tent seven days.” Further, the very name, tent of 
 meeting (vid oni), and the mention of the vail, within the vail 
 (Lev. xvi. 2, 15, xxi. 23, xxiv. 3), indicate a time when the 
 temple was not yet built. Had these directions been com- 
 mitted to writing at a later date, they would not thus refer so 
 continually to dwelling in tents, and a camp, for in this case 
 they would need special explanation to make them in any 
 way compatible with the altered circumstances of the people. 
 How could such ordinances, in the form in which we find 
 them, have been established for the first time after the 
 Israelites had settled in Palestine? Yet the learned Dr. 
 Kalisch, immediately upon quoting the opening words of Lev. 
 xvi.: “ The Lord said wnto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother,’ 
 makes the assertion, astounding to Jew as well as Christian : 
 “There is conclusive evidence to prove that the Day of Atone- 
 ment was instituted considerably more than a thousand years 
 after the death of Aaron and Moses.” His arguments are: (1) 
 the Day of Atonement is never mentioned elsewhere in the 
 O. T.; (2) Solomon’s temple had not a “ vail,’ but folding 
 doors, separating the Most Holy from the Holy Place ; but the 
 temple of Zerubbabel and that of Herod had a vail; and (3) 
 that Ezekiel does not mean the Day of Atonement in chapter 
 xlv. 18-20, for the Day of Atonement was the tenth of the 
 seventh month; but Ezekiel names two days, the first and 
 seventh of the first month, and “it is impossible to suppose 
 that Ezekiel would have deliberately altered the most solemn 
 day in the whole Hebrew year.” Kalisch then adds: “ It 
 may therefore be taken as certain that the Day of Atonement 
 is of later origin than the earlier part of the Babylonian exile.” 
 It is a relief to find so startling a statement supported by so 
 meagre an argument,—indeed, by an argument which in part 
 at least evidently tells the other way,—for the mention of the 
 “vail” points to a time previous to the building of Solomon’s 
 temple; and in the vision of Ezekiel the directions concerning 
 sacrifices lack the phrases, without the camp, Aaron and his 
 sons, and are accommodated to the state of things at a later 
 
166 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIIL 
 
 date. But such a statement involves the belief that the 
 narrative in Leviticus was a deliberate forgery, a tissue of 
 falsehood invented to secure for a modern institution the 
 sanction of antiquity, the authority of the great Lawgiver, and 
 the Divine command. The same pious (impious ?) fraud lies 
 at the basis of the laws concerning both sin- and trespass- 
 offerings, according to the same writer’s account of them ; for 
 while the latter may be traced back to the time of Sanmuel, 
 the former were still unknown, according to him, in the time 
 of Joash, 838 B.c., and “ protracted periods elapsed between 
 the primitive ows of the Philistines and the highly-refined 
 nxon of the Pentateuch.” A theory like this carries with it 
 its own condemnation, for it involves the contradiction that 
 an elaborated scheme of fraud and imposture was invented for 
 the purpose of teaching the nation the exceeding sinfulness of 
 sin,—a scheme, too, which would have been utterly fatal to 
 the reception of the laws in question as divine ordinances 
 by the Jews. Such a fabric of falsehood, however good. its 
 motive, could not have stood a day. If not deliberate 
 falsehoods, these enactments must have been honest and 
 true ; and the argument, from the phraseology in which they 
 are couched, tells, as we have shown, conclusively for their 
 genuineness. 
 
 So far, then, from these portions of the Mosaic law being 
 of comparatively late origin, they must be regarded as among 
 the earliest and most significant ordinances of the divine 
 legation. The proposed inquiry, therefore, is important and 
 interesting ; and in prosecuting it we shall examine—first, the 
 distinctive meaning of the names sin-offering and trespass- 
 offering ; second, the passages in which sin-offerings are de- 
 scribed; third, the passages in which guilt-offerings are 
 ordained ; fourth, the explanations of these two classes of 
 sacrifices proposed by various expositors; and fifth, the ex- 
 planation which seems to us most conclusively true. 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 167 
 
 Te 
 
 The Hebrew word for sin-offering, NNN, is a verbal form from 
 DN, the primary meaning of which is to slip, to make a false 
 step, to stumble (Prov. xix. 2), or to miss in shooting (Judg. 
 xx. 16), German fellen. Thus it is opposed to 8¥, to hit 
 upon ; see Prov. vii. 35, 36. Fuerst accordingly renders it 
 deficere, deesse, deficere a vera via, as opposed to DA, integrum 
 totum esse ; usually followed by 5 of the person against whom, 
 or 2 of the thing in which. The verb in Piel signifies penam 
 peccati ferre, or to offer for sin, Lev. vi. 19 (26), ix. 15. In 
 Kal, the verb occurs 177 times; in Piel, 14 times, often 
 rendered cleanse; Hiphil, 25 times, usually, to cause to sin ; 
 Hithpael, 9 times, to purify oneself. The Greek ἁμαρτάνω is 
 used in the same primary sense, to miss the mark, especially 
 of a spear thrown, 71. v. 287, x. 372 ; Od. vii. 292, and then, 
 more generally, to fail, to do wrong. The noun SOM, usually 
 rendered ἁμαρτία, peccatum (peecare, to err), sin, occurs in the 
 Ὁ. T. 36 times. The verbal ΠΑ occurs 260 times, being 
 rendered siz in our version 168 times, and sin-offering 92 
 times. Hupfeld considers that the word 88M stands in the 
 same relation to YWB, as 723%, “ignorance,” erring, to MITT, 
 presumptuous. This seems to be sanctioned by Job xxxiv. 37: 
 “ He addeth to his sin (inswn-oy) rebellion” (YB), aperta rebellio, 
 Schultens. Nevertheless, the words SON and MNON are in 
 ᾿ many places, where there is no room for excuse, through want 
 of forethought or knowledge, used of glaring offences ; in Ex. 
 xxxii. 21, 30—32, of idolatry of the golden calf; Gen. xvi. 9, 
 1 Sam. ii, 17, Isa. iii. 9, of debauchery; 2 Sam. xii., of 
 murder; Ex. x. 17, of obduracy; 1 Sam. xv. 23, 25, of 
 rebellion ; also of the sins generally of Jeroboam, Baasha, 
 Manasseh, and generically of Israel’s sins, Lev. xxvi. 18, 21, 
 24; 1 Kings viii. 34-36. This general use of the term 
 forbids our limiting its meaning to any one class of sins, or 
 arguing from the primary derivation of the word for any 
 special limitation of the NNN as distinct from the OUR, 
 
168 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 The word YB occurs in the O. T. 85 times, and is usually 
 rendered ἀσέβεια, ἀδικία, transgressio, transgression, from YwB, to 
 break away from. It denotes a breaking loose from God, breach 
 of faith, rebellion (YB IAS = φιλαμαρτάνειν, YWR ADI, ἁμαρ- 
 τάνειν ἀκουσίως). 
 
 The word }i¥ occurs 220 times, rendered variously ἀδικία, 
 ἀνομία, ἁμαρτία, perversitas, deflectio, usually in our version - 
 iniquity, from ΠῚ, to bend, to tuist. It denotes perversity, 
 depravity, and sometimes guilt, or rather heinousness ; see Ps. 
 Xxxli. 5, ἸΝΘΠ PY, peccatum iniquissimwm (Hupfeld). All 
 three words, NON, ΝΒ, and ji, occur together in Ex. xxxiv. 
 7: “ Forgwing iniquity, transgression, and. sin 3” (Ps. xe 
 109. 
 
 The word DUS, guilt, or guilt-offering (in our version, trespass- 
 offering), is from the verb BUS, to fail in duty, the primary idea 
 deing, according to Gesenius, negligence in going ; according to 
 Fuerst, to be desert, waste, isolated, devastated ; then, to be con-’ 
 demned, to be guilty. The gradations in its signification may. 
 thus be classified: (a) to make oneself guilty by sinning, Ex. 
 xxii. 45 xxv. 225 Jeri. 1 7 > Mose iv 1 oy mim: eet Ghae 
 become or be guilty, Lev. iv. 13, 22, 27, v. 2, 3, 17, 23; 
 Num. v. 6; Hab. i. 11; (c) to be found guilty, Isa. xxiv. 6 ; 
 Hos. x. 2. The verb occurs 35 times, and the noun 47 times. 
 The noun signifies guilt, and possessed the general meaning of 
 guilt attaching to all sin. All the Mosaic sacrifices which 
 were of a propitiatory character involved the idea of guilt, 
 because sin does not pass away the moment it is committed, 
 but abides upon the sinner as a debt which he owes to God’s 
 broken law. It involves a guiltiness requiring a propitiation, 
 
 or satisfaction, or both. OWS, therefore, in its general sense, is 
 implied in every 80M. The usual rendering for it in the LXX. 
 is πλημμέλεια, delictum, but sometimes ἄγνοια (Gen. xxvi. 10 ; 
 Ezek. xl. 40, ΧΙ]. 13, xliv. 29). Like NN»n, it is frequently 
 used to denote a guilt-offering. Both words occur side by side 
 as specifying two kinds of offerings; in Lev. vi. 10 (17), vii. 
 7, 37; Nui. xviii. 9; Ezek. xl 39, xl. 13, xliv. 29, xlvi: 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 169 
 
 20; 2 Kings xii. 17 (16); Lev. xiv. 12 (leper) ; Num. vi. 11 
 (Nazarite). 
 
 LT, 
 
 The following are the names of the different kinds of offer- 
 ings in the Mosaic ritual :— 
 
 1. HIP, a gift, from M0, to give, LXX. δῶρον, προσφορά, 
 munus, usually rendered offering, meat-offering, Gen. iv. 3, 4, 
 Dates fl 2.26. Ley. iL often. 
 
 2. DI, a slaughtered animal, a sacrifice, from M3, to slay in 
 sacrifice; LXX. σφαγίον, θυσία, and other words. Hence 
 nam, θυσιαστήριον, ara, altar. This is the generic term for a 
 sacrifice in which shedding of blood was involved. The Pass- 
 over was called NDE NI (6... Ex. xii. 27; Deut. xvi. 2). In 
 Ps, xl. 6, the ΠῚ and 192) are named together (θυσίαν καὶ προσ- 
 φοράν). Christ is thus called owr passover sacrificed, 1 Cor. v. 7 ; 
 ἀρνίον ἐσφαγμένον, Rev. v. 6. 
 
 3. ndiy, from AY, to go up, burnt-offering, LXX. ὁχοκαύ- 
 Topa, occurs very often. It was a self-dedicatory sacrifice ; 
 ef. Eph. v. 2, of Christ. 
 
 4, now, peace-offering, from Dow, to be whole, to have peace ; 
 LXX. σωτήριον, εἰρηνικόν. 
 
 5. NON, the sin-offering, περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, pro peccato. Of 
 Christ, 1 John ii. 2; Rom. iu. 24. 
 
 6. DUN, the guilt-offering, περὶ τῆς πλημμελείας, pro delicto. 
 Of Christ, Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim ii. 6; Heb. vii. 27. 
 
 Of these last two (the propitiatory offerings), the NNN is 
 first mentioned in Gen. iv. 7: “Sin lieth at the door,’ MNBD 
 727 nse, This is usually interpreted to mean sin croucheth, 
 like a wild beast ready to spring upon the offender. But the 
 verb 2) often signifies simply to lie down, eg. Ps. xxiii. 2 ; 
 Isa. xi. 6, 7; and the word NB, door, occurs frequently in 
 connection with the NSM in Lev. iv., where it is directed to 
 bring the animal to be offered as a NNON to the door of the tent 
 of meeting (Yi one nns-s). Of course, those who place the 
 Levitical laws five hundred or a thousand years after Moses, 
 
170 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 deny that there can be any reference in Genesis to sin-offer- 
 ings. But granting their institution in his day, they might 
 possibly be named by the author or compiler of Genesis. We 
 learn nothing, however, distinctively regarding the nature of the 
 sin-offering from this place. Next, the NNSD is twice men- 
 tioned in Ex. xxix. 14, 36, where the bullock to be sacrificed, 
 upon the consecration of Aaron and his sons, is called by that 
 name, and is said to be for atonement (Ὁ ἼΒΞΠ ΓΟ.) 
 
 Again, Ex. xxx. 10: “ Aaron shall make an atonement upon 
 the horns of the altar once in a year with the blood of the sin- 
 offering of atonements” (O33 NNN Dd), 
 
 We now come to the passages in Leviticus where both 
 classes of offerings are described side by side. Lev. iv. 1— 
 v. 13, the sin-offerings. 
 
 “Tf a soul (V3) sin through ignorance (Π}}}}3) against any of 
 the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done, and 
 shall act against any of them.’ No words could more clearly 
 denote actual violation of any commandment of the Lord. 
 There is no limitation to the ceremonial as distinct from the 
 moral law—in' nix °3—aguinst any. of the commandments 
 of Jehovah. But we have the qualifying word 7222, in ignor- 
 ance (LXX. ἀκουσίως; Vulgate, per ignorantiam), which 
 frequently occurs further on with reference both to the sin- 
 and gwilt-offerings, and which has generally been taken to 
 denote an ignorance or inadvertence on the part of the trans- 
 gressor, by virtue of which his act ceases to be in any true 
 sense a sin as far as he isconcerned. But this word does not 
 warrant such a conclusion. The verb 23¥ signifies to wander, 
 to go astray, to err, ultro citroque vacillare, inconsulto et temere 
 agere (Fuerst). It occurs in Gen. vi. 3, where the much dis- 
 puted word 03¥2 is now almost unanimously taken as the 
 infin. Kal of 33% with the 3 plur. pron. suffix, in or through his 
 wandering he is flesh, ie. mortal (Isa. xl. 6, 7), “Because of his 
 error he is flesh ;” thus Tuch, Gesenius, Ewald. Here the 
 reference is to the first man’s disobedience. Again, the verb 
 with the noun occurs in the law of the guilt-offering, Lev. 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 172 
 
 v. 18: “ The priest shall make an atonement for him concern- 
 ing his ignorance wherein he erred” (307 ini’), where the 
 idea of erring is expressed. Further, in Ps. cxix. 67: “ Be- 
 fore I was afflicted I went astray” (338 °28) ; Job xii. 16: “ The 
 deceived and the deceiver,” errans, et errare faciens (FAVA 330). 
 The noun twice occurs in Ecclesiastes, v. 5 (6), x. 5, where it 
 signifies error. It expresses not absolute ignorance, nor even 
 inadvertence, but an erring from the right way,—an act or 
 omission which is in the true sense sin on the part of the 
 man, and for which he is personally guilty; not, indeed, com- 
 mitted deliberately or with intention to sin, but into which he 
 has been betrayed through passion or strong temptation, by 
 which he has been overtaken (Gal. vi. 1). It is thus opposed 
 to premeditated sins, perfidia, treachery (byn Syn, eg. Josh. 
 vil. 1, Achan), and to presumptuous sins (St, from “At or 
 Tt, to boil over, to deal proudly, to act insolently); see Ps. xix. 
 13 (12): “ Who can understand his errors (iN) 2 Declare 
 me free from hidden faults” (niND2),—faults hidden not only 
 from others, but from our own hearts, e.g. through the habit of 
 self-deception (Perowne); compare Lev. iv. 13: “ The thing be 
 hid (Boy) Srom the eyes of the assembly.” “ From presumptuous 
 sins (A) also keep Thy servant back.” .The 7232 sins are also 
 contrasted with those 1127 Ἴ3, with a high hand, Num. xv. 30. 
 The designation therefore does not deprive the act spoken of 
 of its sinfulness ; it is still a sin, but one fallen into unawares. 
 Therefore it is used of the manslayer, Josh. xx. 3, 9. 
 
 After this general description of the sins for which the sin- 
 offering was to be made, we have (Lev. iv. 3-12) the ritual of 
 the sacrifice for the anointed priest, the high priest. He is to 
 bring a bullock without blemish to the door of the tabernacle, 
 to lay his hand on its head, to kill it, to bring in the blood, and 
 sprinkle it seven times before the vail, to put it on the horns 
 of the altar of incense, and to pour it at the bottom of the 
 altar of burnt-offering. The fat he is to burn on this altar, 
 and the rest, even the whole bullock, he is to carry forth 
 without the camp and burn it in a clean place. 
 
172 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIIL. 
 
 Verses 15-21 describe the sin-offering for the whole con- 
 gregation, in the case of a sin, 723¥3, committed against any of 
 the commandments of the Lord. The congregation shall bring 
 the bullock, the elders shall lay their hands upon his head 
 before the Lord, the bullock shall be killed, and then the 
 priest shall do with the blood, the fat, and the carcase, as in 
 the former case, thus making atonement for them, and it shall 
 be forgiven. Here clearly is sin and forgiveness of sin in the 
 true sense, through a propitiatory offering. 
 
 Verses 22—26 describe the. sin-offering when a ruler hath 
 sinned through ignorance (7233) against any of the command- 
 ments of the Lord, and is guilty. The sacrifice, which he him- 
 self is to bring, to lay his hand on, and to slay, is to be a kid 
 of the goats. 
 
 Vers. 27-35 describe the sin-offering, “ If any one of the 
 common people sin (M23Y2) against any of the commandments of 
 the Lord which ought not to be done, and is guilty.” He is 
 himself to bring, to lay his hand on, and to kill, a kid of the 
 goats, a female without blemish. 
 
 Lev. v. 1-13 contains further directions concerning the sin- © 
 offering. Three special cases of individual sins are named: 
 (a) The case of one who as a witness conceals and does not 
 give evidence concerning the crime of profane swearing which 
 he has known or heard committed. (6) Contact with what is un- 
 clean ; “ though τέ be hid from him, he is unclean, and guilty ;” 
 “when he knoweth it, then he shall be guilty.” (c) Rash swearing 
 about anything, good or bad (Num. xxiv. 13). In these cases 
 we find the expression: “And it be hid from him” (n>y3). 
 The verb ndy occurs in Ps. ΧΟ. 8: “ Our secret sins (ay) im 
 the light of Thy countenance ;” in Ps. xxvi. 4: “ With dis- 
 semblers ” (DND2Y) ; in Kecles. xii. 14: “ With every secret 
 thing.” Thus the expression cannot denote such ignorance 
 as would deprive the conduct of the moral quality which we 
 designate sin ; it means that the man has not considered, when 
 in the act, that he was doing wrong; and the corresponding 
 
 3? 
 phrase, when he knows it, signifies, when on reflection he comes to 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. ἢ iva 
 
 see the sinfulness of his deed. Now, for these three classes of 
 sin, the sin-offering was to be a lamb or kid of the goats, or 
 two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, or the tenth part of an 
 ephah of fine flour, according to the ability of the offerer. 
 
 In Lev. vi. 24-30 (17-23) the sanctity of the sin-offering 
 is dwelt upon ; if eaten, to be partaken of only by the males 
 among the priests. In Lev. viii. 14-17 the sin-offering is 
 again described in its performance; again, in ix. 16-20. 
 
 In Lev. xiv. 13, 19, 22, 31, sin-offerings are prescribed for 
 the leper, side by side with guilt-offerings. 
 
 In Ley. xvi. the sacrifices of the great Day of Atonement, the 
 
 bullock for the priest, and the goat for the congregation, are 
 called sin-offerings (e.g. verse 27). Regarding these, together 
 with the ceremony of the scape-goat, we read, verse 34: 
 “ This shall be an everlasting statute to you, to make an atone- 
 ment for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.” 
 ~The blood was to be sprinkled before the mercy-seat within 
 the vail, and Aaron was to lay “ both his hands on the head of the 
 live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children 
 of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting 
 them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by 
 the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.” 
 
 In Num. vi. the sin-offering is ordained on occasion of. the 
 defilement of the Nazarite through unexpected contact with a 
 dead body: “Jf any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath 
 defiled the head of his consecration . . ., on the eighth day he shall 
 bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest to the door of 
 the tent of meeting: and the priest shall offer the one for a sin- 
 offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make an atone- 
 ment for him, for that he sinned by the dead (vingn-ON NDN), 
 and shall hallow his head that same day.’ The defilement 
 being only ceremonial, the sin-offering in this case was small. 
 But it typified moral impurity, and a guilt-offering was also 
 required. Further, when the days of his separation are ful- 
 filled, “ He shall offer (verse 14) one ewe lamb of the first year 
 without blemish for a sin-offering.” 
 
174 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 In Num. xv. 22-31, the sin-offering is again commanded, 
 both for the whole people and for the individual, in the case 
 of sins of omission: “Jf ye have erred (20M), and not observed 
 all these commandments,’—v.e. a general neglect of the law, eg. 
 in the time of war; and, indeed, a continued neglect, for it is 
 added, “from the day that the Lord commanded Moses, and 
 henceforward among your generations,” from the beginning of 
 the law onwards,—* then i shall be, if from the eyes of the con- 
 gregation i be done to error, all the congregation shall offer... 
 one kid of the goats for a sin-offering. And the priest shall 
 make an atonement for all the congregation, for rt is an error.” 
 A similar ordinance follows for omission on the part of an 
 individual: “ The priest shall make an atonement for the erring 
 soul” (navn ΘΈΤΟ, We cannot even here suppose that the 
 
 congregation was in ignorance of the neglect, however long 
 continued. But the neglect was habitual and not deliberate ; 
 when reminded of it, the people would acknowledge it and 
 repent. So of the individual, the omission was one for which 
 he was accountable, for he ought to have known and remem- 
 bered his duty. Sin in the true sense was here, sin of 
 omission, and therefore the sin-offering is enjoined. Upon 
 this follows the case of presumptuous sin, sin with a high hand 
 (77 72), ὁ... the deliberate neglect of duty or violation of 
 precept,—as, eg., if a man said, “I deny God and His com- 
 mands,” or, “I will continue in sin, for sacrifices will put it 
 right,’ in open and avowed rebellion against Jehovah and His 
 _ law, thus poisoning the springs of all obedience,—“ that soul 
 shall be cut off from among his people, because he hath despised 
 (113) the word of the Lord, and hath broken (51, broken ‘in 
 pieces, made void, Ps. cxix. 126; not Don, asin Ps; ΣΧ τ ΟἿ, 
 οἵ. verse 34) His commandment ; that soul shall be utterly cut 
 off, its iniquity 15 in tt.” 
 
 In Ezekiel’s great vision of the temple we find sin-offerings 
 mentioned, but without further details concerning their import ; 
 see Ezek. xliii. 19-25, xliv. 27-29, xlv. 17-25. 
 
 This summary of passages shows (1) that the NNON, or sin- 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 175 
 
 offering, was the most universal of the offerings appointed 
 under the Levitical law. It was ordained in the case of per- 
 sonal defilement ; in the case of the leper and the Nazarite ; 
 for concealment of evidence; for contact with uncleanness ; 
 for rash swearing on the part of any individual; for any of 
 the common people who sinned in erring; for a ruler who 
 sinned in erring; for the priest at his consecration, and when 
 he sinned in erring; for individual sins of omission or neglect; 
 for national and continued neglect of divine ordinances; for 
 the whole congregation when they sinned in erring ; for priests 
 and people on the great Day of Atonement. 
 
 (2) That the sin-offering did not always consist of one and 
 the same sacrifice, but that the victim varied according to the 
 sin, and according to the means of the offerer. Sometimes it 
 was a bullock; sometimes a lamb of the first year ; sometimes 
 a ewe, a kid of the goats; sometimes two turtle doves, or 
 pigeons ; sometimes the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour. 
 But in all cases it was to be without blemish. : 
 
 (3) That the offerer was himself to bring his offering, in 
 most cases to lay or press his hand upon the head of the 
 victim, and himself to slay it. 
 
 (4) That most minute directions were given about the fat 
 and the manipulation of the blood,—the fat to be burnt before 
 the Lord by the priest, who was to sprinkle the blood seven 
 times before the vail, to put it on the horns of the altar of 
 incense, and to pour it at the bottom of the altar. of burnt- 
 offering. The carcase was then to be carried without the 
 camp, and burnt in a chosen place. But in some cases the 
 priests might eat it. 
 
 TUE 
 
 The following are the passages relating to the OWS, or 
 guilt-offering: Lev. v. 14-16: “If a soul (82) commit a 
 trespass and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the 
 Lord.” The phrase Sy >yon—in our version, commit a trespass, 
 
176 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 LXX. λάθῃ αὐτὴν λήθη, Vulg. prevaricans—is the verb 2D, 
 to cover, to act covertly, dolose agere, and the noun Syn, a decep- 
 tive vail, fallacia, prevaricatio malitiosa, perfidy. It occurs of 
 Achan’s sin, Josh. vii. 1, xxii. 50; of the supposed treachery 
 of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, in building 
 the altar on the other side Jordan, Josh. xxii. 16, 22, 31; of 
 the transgression at Meribah, Deut. xxxii. 51; of the taking 
 of strange wives, Ezra x. 2,10; see Ezek. xvii. 20, xviii. 24, 
 xx. 27; of Saul’s sin, 1 Chron. x. 13; of the sins of Ahaz, 
 2 Chron. xxvii. 19; of Manasseh’s sins, xxxii. 19; again, 
 xxxvi. 14: “Priests and people transgressed very much”—in 
 Zedekiah’s reign—(yn-P\yn? 127), “after all the abominations | 
 of the heathen ;” Num. xxxi. 16: “ These caused the children of 
 Israel to turn aside into a trespass νυ ΡΟ) in the matter of 
 Peor.” The expression evidently denoted serious apostasy 
 and gross crime, and comes between the sins nav and those 
 m21 73, yet it does not imply deliberate purpose ; it is rather 
 the yielding to strong temptation of avarice or lust, resorting 
 perhaps to treachery to attain the end, and robbing God or 
 man of what belongs to him. Hence in Ley. v. 15 it is used 
 side by side with MIw2ONON: “ And sin in error from the 
 holy (commands) of Jehovah. Then he shall bring as his guilt- 
 offering (AUS) to Jehovah a ram (x) without blemish out of the 
 flock, with thy estimation (J31¥3, LXX. τιμῆς, price; cf. Matt. 
 xxvii. 9) of silver (namely) of shekels (of at least two shekels 
 value, according to Aben Esra), after the holy shekel, for a 
 guilt-offering. And he shall make amends (D>w), in that he 
 hath sinned (88M) against the holy; and shall add a fifth part 
 thereto, and give it unto the priest ; and the priest shall make 
 an atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering, and it 
 shall be forgiven him.” Lev. v. 17-19: “ And τῇ, further, a 
 soul sin (SON WE), and commit anything against any of the 
 commandments of the Lord that ought not to be done ; though he 
 wist it not, yet ts he guilty and shall bear his iniquity.” Here 
 the words distinctly express actual sin, positive violation of 
 God’s law involving guilt. But what means the YT! Ndr: “and 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 177 
 
 did not know”? These sonar usually insisted upon as 
 denoting ignorance, such ignorance as would make the act 
 cease to be sz on the part of the doer. Thus to take them 
 would contradict the other part of the sentence, which clearly 
 accuses the man of actual sin, and pronounces him guilty. 
 The phrase is used sometimes to denote culpable ignorance, 
 eg. 1588. 1. 3: “Israel doth not know;” xxvii. 11: “A people of 
 no understanding ;” xliv. 18: “ They know not, neither do they 
 understand ;” Jer. iv. 22: “ They have not known me; they have 
 none understanding: to do good they have no knowledge;” see 
 ix. 6; Deut. xxxi 28,29. So in Heb. v. 2: τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι 
 καὶ πλανωμένοις. The words were probably added in anti- 
 cipation of the plea of ignorance, which could so easily be 
 urged as an excuse for sinning. 
 
 Verses 18,19: “And he shall bring a ram without blemish 
 out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a guilt-offering (Οὐκ, unto 
 the priest : and the priest shall make an atonement for him con- 
 cerning his error (iN) wherein he erred (Ww) and wist it not, 
 and i shall be forgiven him. It is a guilt-offering: he hath 
 certainly trespassed against the Lord (: niny2 DUS DWN NAT DvN),” 
 
 Lev. vi. 2-7: “Jf a soul sin, and commit a trespass (ney 
 by) against the Lord, and lie (M3) unto his neighbour concern- 
 ing a trust, or a deposit, or plunder, or hath deceived his neigh- 
 bour ; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning 
 it, and sweareth falsely ; then shall he restore the plunder, or 
 the spoil, or the trust, or whatever it rs about which he has sworn 
 falsely. He shall restore it in the principal, and shall add the 
 Jifth part more thereto, and give ut to him to whom τέ belongs, on 
 the day of his guilt-offering. And he shall bring as his guilt- 
 offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish, according to thy 
 estimation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest, who shall make 
 atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him.” 
 
 Here we have the guilt-offering provided as the means of 
 forgiveness when a man has broken the eighth and ninth 
 commandments. Theft and lying and false swearing are 
 named, the one sin following upon the other. Restitution is 
 
 M 
 
178 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIU. 
 
 to be made to the person robbed, and a fifth part added; and 
 then the guilt of the double sin is to be atoned for by the 
 guilt-offering, and thus God’s forgiveness is to be obtained. 
 
 Ley. vii. 1-7: “ This is the law of the guilt-offering: it is 
 most holy. In the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall 
 they kill the guilt-offering: and the blood thereof shall he 
 sprinkle round about upon the altar. He shall offer of τέ all 
 its fat, with the liver and kidneys; and shall burn them upon 
 the altar, Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it 
 shall be eaten in the Holy Place: it is most holy. As the sin- 
 offering is, so is the guilt-offering: there is one law for them.” 
 
 Lev. xiv. 12 sqq. The guilt-offermg is commanded for the 
 leper, together with the sin- offering. 
 
 Lev. xix. 20-22: “ Whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, 
 that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, but not redeemed 
 nor liberated; she shall be scourged (punishment shall take 
 place, Kalisch) ; but they shall not be put to death, because she 
 was not free. And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the 
 Lord, to the door -of the tent of meeting,a ram for a quilt- 
 offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with 
 the ram of the guilt-offering for the sin which he hath done: 
 and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.” 
 
 Flere the guilt-offering 1s appointed as the means of forgiveness 
 of sins against the seventh commandment. 
 
 Num. v. 5-8: “ When a man or woman shall commit any 
 sin that men commit, to do a trespass (yn >i) against the 
 Lord, and that person be guilty ; then they shall confess their sin 
 which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with 
 the principal thereof, and give it unto him against whom he 
 hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recom- 
 pense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the 
 Lord, even to the priest ; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby 
 an atonement shall be made for him.” 
 
 Num. vi. 12, the guilt-offering, a lamb of the first year, is 
 appointed for the Nazarite. 
 
 1 Sam. vi. ὃ, 4, 8, 17. When the ark was with the 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 179 
 
 Philistines their priests instructed them : “ When ye send away 
 the ark of the God of Israel, return Him a quilt-offering. Then 
 said they, What shall be the guilt-offering ? They answered, Five 
 golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of 
 the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, even 
 on your lords.” 
 
 Ezek. xl. 39, xlii. 13, xliv. 29, the guilt-offering is named 
 side by side with the sin-offering. 
 
 Ezra x. 19. Of the men who had taken strange wives: 
 “ They gave their hands that they would put away their wives ; 
 and, being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their guilt- 
 offering.” 
 
 1. We learn from these passages that the guilt-offering was 
 ordained for sins against the moral as well as the ceremonial 
 law. The phrase rie) ΟΡ, to deal deceitfully, frequently occurs 
 in connection with it. Theft, lying, swearing falsely, are 
 expressly named as sins on account of which it is to be 
 brought. It is expressly prescribed for the man who has 
 committed adultery with a bondmaid. It was the propitiatory 
 sacrifice offered in Ezra’s time by the men who had taken 
 strange wives. All these were directly moral offences. It 
 was further to be offered by the leper in his cleansing, and 
 by the Nazarite ; and the Philistines offered it when suffering 
 through the presence of the ark among them. 
 
 2. The guilt-offering is always spoken of in the law as a 
 sacrifice to be offered by an individual. The expression, if a 
 soul (52) sin, usually prefaces its enactment. The case of 
 the Philistines seems to be exceptional ; still the trespass- 
 offering in that case was according to the number of the lords 
 of the Philistines. The sin-offering, on the other hand, was 
 appointed not for individuals only, but for the people collec- 
 tively likewise. 
 
 3. The guilt-offering usually was to consist of one particular 
 victim, namely, ὦ ram (O's) without blemish out of the flock, 
 and of a certain value, with thy estimation of silver of shekels, 
 after the holy shekel. In the case of the sin-offering, instead 
 
180 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 of the lamb, a kid, two turtle doves or pigeons, or the tenth 
 of an ephah of fine flour, might be offered, according to the 
 ability of the offerer. 
 
 4. The guilt-offering was usually to be accompanied with 
 the restitution in value, and a fifth over, of the property 
 stolen. The trespass was to be recompensed with the prin- 
 cipal thereof unto him against whom he had trespassed, or 
 unto the priest, beside the ram of the atonement. 
 
 5. No mention is made of the laying of the hand upon the 
 head of the victim. Some have argued, that though not 
 mentioned it may be taken for granted. But the directions 
 are very explicit; and it is a singular fact that, although the 
 laying of the hand is repeatedly enjoined as part of the 
 ceremonial of the sin-offering, it is never named in connection 
 with the guilt-offering. 
 
 6. There was a difference in the manipulation of the blood 
 in the case of the guilt-offering ; it was to be sprinkled, or 
 rather poured (P%, to scatter), on the altar round about. In 
 the case of the sin-offering, the priest was to sprinkle (7), to 
 sprinkle) the blood with his finger seven times before the vail, 
 to put (2) it on the horns of the altar of incense, and to pour 
 (72) it at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. P71 in 
 the LXX. is προσχεῖν, Vulg. fundere. MI is paivew and 
 aspergere. 
 
 ΤᾺΣ 
 
 Explanations the most varied and even contradictory have 
 been suggested concerning the difference between the sin- 
 offering and the guilt-offering. Some have explained DUS as 
 the breach of a covenant or of a private contract with priests, 
 fellow-citizens, officials, and explain the offering as one 
 prompted by an upbraiding conscience (Cremer, <Antigq.). 
 Michaelis, Jahn, and others take OVX to refer to sins of 
 omission, and MNOO to sins of commission. Grotius gives 
 precisely the reverse interpretation, taking DU to refer to 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 181 
 
 sins of commission, and ΠΝ to sins of omission. Sykes 
 (Upon Sacrifice) and Saubert (De sac. 111. 66) take the guilt- 
 offering to refer to premeditated and wilful sins, and the sin- 
 offering to sins of error or inadvertence. Abenesra took the 
 sin-offering te denote sins of ignorance, and the guilt-offering 
 sins of carelessness or inattention, of haste and impulse. 
 According to Hengstenberg, the sin denoted by the N88 was 
 an inward disturbance, a fall of the man from his inner 
 standard ; while that denoted by DUS is transgression against 
 God and His law, a treachery or robbery of God demanding 
 restitution. Winer, in his Real-Wéorterbuch, explains the dis- 
 tinction thus. “The guilt-offerings,” he says, “ were of narrower 
 import than the sin-offerings. The offences referred to in the 
 sin-offering were more serious and more general than those 
 referred to in the guilt-offering. The sin-offering implied 
 guilt as well as sin, and hence with the sin-offering the guilt- 
 offermg was also ordained. A sin-offering was to be presented 
 when a person sinned, 7332, or generally when actual sin was 
 committed, and was known publicly among the priesthood and 
 the people; but a guilt-offering was ordained when the sin, 
 whether wilful or through inadvertence, was a private sin, so 
 that the individual himself alone was conscious of his guilt. 
 Guilt-offerings were thus for subjective, sin-offerings for ob- 
 jective sins. He who brought a guilt-offering was self-accused 
 by conscience ; he who brought a sin-offering was publicly 
 accused.” This view has the high sanction of Josephus (Anitt. 
 iii. 9. 3): “The sacrifices for sins are offered in the same 
 manner as the thank-offerings. But those who are unable to 
 purchase complete sacrifices offer two pigeons or turtle doves. 
 But if a person fall into sin by ignorance, he offers an ewe 
 lamb or a female kid of the goats, and the priests sprinkle the 
 blood at the altar not after the former manner, but at the 
 corners of it. But if any one sin, and is conscious of it him- 
 self, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a 
 ram, the law enjoining him to do so, the flesh of which the 
 priests eat as before in the Holy Place on the same day.” 
 
182 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 Rhiem, again (Stud. u. Krit. 1854), maintains that the 
 trespass-offerings were presented for contraventions of the 
 rights of the covenant (Bundes-rechte), and sin-offerings for 
 contravention of the precepts of the covenant (Bundes-sat- 
 zungen). The fundamental idea of the sin-offering was expia- 
 tion; that of the guilt-offering was mulcta, or satisfaction. 
 The same view is advocated by Oehler (in Herzog, Opfercultus), 
 who says that the idea of satisfaction, of rendering compen- 
 sation for a violated right, is essential in the guilt-offering ; 
 
 while the covering of the sinner’s soul from sin by the 
 sacrifice of a pure life, and his being thus absolved, was the 
 work of the sin-offering. 
 
 Dr. Kalisch observes: “It is obvious at the first glance, 
 that, with few exceptions, all the cases where guilt-offerings 
 were enjoined are connected with the rights of property, and 
 that the ows was commanded for their unintentional violation.” 
 —On Leviticus, p. 267. Offences against property were, he 
 argues, considered lighter than those committed against the 
 principles of monotheism, and were therefore expiated by a 
 kind of sacrifice regarded as less solemn and less severe. The 
 sin-offering was the more comprehensive and general, for 
 every NNwn involved an ΠΝ, or guilt. Still, the guilt- 
 offering was probably the older institution. Intentional 
 offences against property were expiated by a guilt-offering ; 
 “the law prescribes an DUN in various cases of open or pre-— 
 meditated fraud and violence, for theft and abuse of trust, for 
 unlawful keeping of found property, and even for daring 
 robbery and shameless perjury (Lev. v. 21-26),—laws which 
 must date from a comparatively early period.” But when 
 the Hebrews advanced in religious education it was deemed 
 necessary to atone not only for intentional, but also for 
 involuntary offences. The old ovx was retained, but confined 
 to involuntary offences, and a new class of expiatory sacrifices, 
 the N88, was introduced. This, however, was not till after 
 the lapse of protracted periods, after the time of Joel, 810 
 B.C., and after the time of Joash. 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 183 
 
 In the Speaker’s Commentary on Leviticus the writer says : 
 “ The sin-offering appears to have included the entire range of 
 sins, negligences, and ignorances. The designation sin through 
 ignorance cannot be the right one; it seems strictly to denote 
 inadvertence.” It was what the Psalmist spoke of: “ Who 
 can understand his errors? Cleanse Thou me from secret 
 faults.” When he examined his heart he found his offences 
 multiply to such extent that he felt them to be beyond 
 calculation, and so prayed to be cleansed from those which 
 were concealed not only from others, but from himself. Sin- 
 offerings, however, were sometimes required for breaches of 
 the law committed strictly in ignorance (Lev. v. 17, iv. 14, 
 23, 28). As to the guilt-offering, forfeit seems to have 
 answered to the Hebrew avs. The guilt-offering had less 
 intimate connection with the conscience than the sin-offering. 
 
 V. 
 
 In summing up the results of our inquiry, and the issue of 
 the various explanations suggested, the first conclusion at 
 which we arrive is that both the sin-offering and the guwili- 
 offering had to do with, and were expiatory offerings for, real 
 sINs, and that by means of them, by God’s appointment, the 
 guilty Israelite obtained the forgiveness of sins. 
 
 It is a view advocated by some, and confidently asserted by 
 others, that “no sacrifice secured forgiveness for specific moral 
 offences; a Jew who had broken one of the ten command- 
 ments could not bring a sheep or a lamb to the priest and 
 atone for his sin.” And again: “ Speaking generally, neither 
 sin-offerings nor trespass-offerings could, when offered by an 
 individual, assure forgiveness to the guilty for any sins com- 
 mitted either against God or man.”—Dale on the Atonement, 
 85,469. So serious a misconception is due, perhaps, to a too 
 hasty acceptance of the rendering of out English version, si 
 through ignorance, and to a generalization from the expression, 
 wist not of it, which occasionally occurs. But, as we have 
 
184 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 shown, these modifying terms, where they are used, occur side 
 by side with others, predicating sin and guilt of the trans- 
 gressor; and there are cases in which they are not used, and 
 where offences against the moral law are expressly named. 
 The well-known distinction between moral and positive 
 precepts (so ably explained by Bishop Butler, Analogy, part 
 il. chapter 1), and the moral guilt involved in the violation 
 of either, must be borne in mind. Positive or ceremonial 
 ordinances are of the nature of moral commands. They are 
 duties arising from the command of Him whose creatures and 
 subjects we are. Neglect or violation of them, though we 
 know not the reasons of them, is sim. A man, moreover, is 
 responsible, an Israelite would be responsible, not only for what 
 he knows, but for what he might and ought to have known. 
 The Old Testament conception of sin is very wide and deep ; 
 it regards sin as pervading human life throughout. Israel, 
 separated by God as a holy nation to Himself, was taught 
 continually the depth and defilement of sin, even the smallest. 
 The very relationship into which by God’s electing love they 
 were introduced, tended to deepen the sense of sin; and the 
 individual conscience, as well as the divine ordinance, required 
 continued expiation, by sin- and trespass-offerings, for the 
 impurity and guilt of thought, and habit, and act, which that 
 relationship brought to light. The outward defilement, arising 
 from bodily contact with what was unclean, or from such a 
 disease as leprosy, was a shadow and type of the real impurity 
 and sinfulness which a conscience quickened by nearness to a 
 holy God accused its possessor of ; and the offerings instituted 
 for cleansing blended, with the external cleansing, the sense 
 and assurance of inward forgiveness. This is the import of 
 the sin- and guilt-offerings enjoined upon the recovery of the 
 leper and the defiled Nazarite. So also in the case of neglect 
 of ordinances on the part of the whole congregation ; the par- 
 ticular sin or neglect in question could not, perhaps, be fastened 
 upon every individual alike, inadvertence or even ignorance 
 might perhaps be pleaded for some; still the sense of sin, 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 185 
 
 direct or indirect, eg. the sin of not knowing and doing what 
 ought to have been known and done, would rest upon all, and 
 the offering would be not a merely ceremonial form for a 
 ceremonial omission which involved no moral guilt, but in the 
 full sense of the words an offering for sin and for guilt, 
 whereby through the divine grace forgiveness would be 
 obtained. The sin-offerings of the great Day of Atonement 
 still more plainly illustrate this. Priests and people were to 
 humble themselves under a sense of sin and guilt, and the 
 sacrifices offered were for propitiation and pardon. Putting 
 both his hands upon the bullock, the high priest said: “ O 
 Lord, I have failed, I have trespassed, I have sinned before 
 Thee, I and my house! O Lord, grant atonement for the 
 failings and trespasses and sins with which I have failed and 
 trespassed and sinned before Thee, I and my house, as it is 
 written in the law of Thy servant Moses” (Mishna, quoted 
 in Kalisch, Lev. xvi. 11). Such was the prayer, at least of 
 later usage. And he was to take the blood of the bullock 
 and sprinkle it with his finger before the mercy-seat. So 
 _ jikewise was he to do with the blood of the goat, “to make 
 atonement for the sanctuary, on account of the uncleanness of the 
 children of Israel, and on account of their transgressions, and 
 on account of all their sins,’ Lev. xvi. 16. The individual 
 offences, moreover, for which the sin- or guilt-offering was 
 required are expressly called sins, and are said to involve 
 personal cuitt. And the descriptions, in some instances 
 given of the offences, show that they were clear violations of 
 the moral law, eg. theft, perjury, adultery with a bondmaid, 
 lying, 1.6. violations of the seventh, eighth, and ninth com- 
 mandments. It is true, as the Epistle to the Hebrews says: 
 “ The blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sins,” 
 they were effectual only as types of the one great sacrifice 
 offered for the sin of the world by the Lord Jesus Christ upon 
 the cross; but the penitent Israelite, by means of them, 
 obtained the hope of the forgiveness which God in Christ 
 can grant. 
 
186 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 Now, in comparing the laws concerning sin-offerings with 
 those concerning guilt-offerings, we cannot find any key to 
 the difference in the distinction (a) between sins of omission 
 and sins of commission; or in that (Ὁ) between inadvertencies 
 and actual sins; or in that (c) between sins against conscience 
 and sins against God, as some have supposed. We find sin- 
 offerings and guilt-offerings enjoined alike for all these classes 
 of sins. Even the distinguishing mark of the guilt-offering, 
 suggested by Kalisch, that it was (d) for sins against property, 
 does not hold, as he admits, in all cases, e.g. not in the case of 
 the leper or of the Nazarite ; and only by a strained explanation 
 in the case of intercourse with a bondmaid. Still in most 
 cases this is a feature of the guilt-offering ; it usually concerns 
 violations of the rights of property, or, as Rhiem puts it, of 
 covenant rights as distinct from covenant precepts. Further, 
 we cannot say that the distinction lies (6) between known and 
 secret sins; for some acts requiring a sin-offering (eg. the 
 sin of concealing testimony) might be secret sins, and some 
 acts requiring a guilt-offering must have been known to others 
 besides the sinner himself. Still this is a distinction which 
 for the most part characterizes the offences for which a 
 guilt-offering is required. 
 
 Again, the guilt-offering was in every instance an individual 
 sacrifice. It was (jf) always an offering on account of indi- 
 vidual sin, whereas this was only generally the case with the 
 sin-offering (Lev. iv. 2, 22, 27, v. 1-4); the stn-offering was 
 sometimes ordained for the priests collectively and for the 
 people collectively ; the guwilt-offering, never. 
 
 But there were two other points of difference, concerning 
 not the persons offering, nor the sins committed, but in con- 
 nection with the offerings themselves, which in every case are 
 to be found, and which fully bring to light the distinction we 
 are seeking for. 
 
 In order that it may go forth in forgiveness to the sinner, 
 Holy Love must (as the sin-laden conscience itself testifies) 
 demand and provide both a propitiation for the sin committed, 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 187 
 
 and a vindication of that holy law which is its outcome 
 and embodiment, and upon the never-failing maintenance of 
 which the welfare and happiness of all moral beings depend. 
 Blessed be His holy name, God has met this demand in the 
 obedience unto death of His only-begotten Son, in what the 
 older divines call the active and passive obedience of Christ. 
 But it was beforehand embodied and met, as far as type could 
 meet it,in the two classes of sacrifices which we have been con- 
 sidering. The sin-offering set forth PROPITIATION, the guwilt- 
 offering typified SATISFACTION. In this distinction we are 
 confirmed by the explanations of Rhiem, Oehler, and 
 Kalisch, though they fail to give it the prominence which it 
 demands. 
 
 In the sin-offering, as we have seen, no special stress was 
 laid upon the value of the victim. It varied not only with 
 the rank and office, but with the means of the offerer. “Jf 
 he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring two turtle 
 doves or two young pigeons” (Lev. ν. 7). But the most minute 
 and careful directions are given concerning the act of sacrifice 
 and the manipulation of the blood. The sinner was himself 
 to press his hand on the head of the victim, and himself to 
 slay it. If the sacrifice was for the people collectively, the 
 pressing of the hand and slaying of the victim were confided 
 to one of the elders of the people. Only in the case of a 
 sacrifice for himself, and on the Day of Atonement, was the 
 pressing of the hand to be performed by the priest. “ The 
 offerer,’ says Kalisch, “ after having signified by imposition of 
 the hand his intimate relation to the victim and his readiness 
 to surrender it to God in his stead, forthwith proved and 
 sealed his readiness by at once killing the animal at the sacred 
 altar. The worshipper was designedly permitted to perform 
 the act of immolation, that the offering might clearly be 
 marked as his own.” When the blood flowed from the dying 
 victim, the officiating priest was to receive it, and “ ¢o dip his 
 Jinger in the blood, and sprinkle the blood seven times before the 
 Lord before the vail of the sanctuary. And some of the blood 
 
188 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 he shall put upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the 
 Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation.” All this is 
 peculiar to the sin-offering ; it was not enjoined for the guilt- 
 offering. Indeed, the word i, paivew, aspergere (see Isa. 
 hi. 14), is not used of the blood of the guilt-offering, but 
 simply the word Pi, προσχεῖν, fundere, to pour. On the Day 
 of Atonement, the blood was to be taken by the high priest 
 within the vail, and to be sprinkled seven times upon the 
 mercy-seat (17534, ἱλαστήριον, propitiatorium), and before the 
 mercy-seat. It is clear that this sprinkling of the blood was 
 the -very heart and core of the sin-offering; and that the 
 sprinkling towards the vail seven times in the ordinary sin- 
 offering pointed to that which was within the vail, the ark of 
 the testimony and the mercy-seat, whither it was actually 
 taken by the high priest on the great Day of Atonement. 
 Now that which made the ark sacred was the “ Testimony” 
 (MYA, τὰ μαρτύρια, testimoniwm) which it contained, the Tables 
 of the Law, the demands and prohibitions of Love. And 
 placed above it was the mercy-seat (N7BD9, ἱλαστήριον), of 
 pure gold, with the cherubim, thus symbolizing the holiness 
 of the inviolable law side by side with the forgiving mercy of 
 Jehovah. The sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering 
 towards it was a symbol of propitiation, as the channel and 
 means of forgiveness ; typifying the sacrificial work of Him 
 “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) 
 through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; 
 to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that He might 
 be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,’ Rom. 111. 
 25,26. In the sin-offering, therefore, propitiation for sin was 
 made, and thus forgiving love went forth to the penitent. It 
 was of course only a shadow of the one effectual sin-offering, 
 made when the Divine Servant was bruised for our iniquities ; 
 and its imperfection was embodied in the ritual itself, for the 
 sprinkling was only ‘ Godwards, not manwards, it was “ to 
 cleanse the sanctuary,” typically to remove the sin from the 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 189 
 
 sight or consciousness of God (Ps. xxxil. 1; Jer. xxxi. 34), 
 because the sanctuary, as the place of intercourse between God 
 and man, had been defiled by the intervening sin (Lev. xvi. 
 16). To this purifying or ‘cleansing (170, caOapifew) God- 
 wards, justification (PY, Isa. 111. 11, δικαιοῦν) manwards 
 corresponds ; and in the sacrifice of the Divine Servant we 
 have the full realization of what the sin-offering imperfectly 
 prefigured. He not only enters into the Holiest with His own 
 blood (Heb. ix. 12) Godwards, but He sprinkles His precious 
 blood manwards (Isa. lii.15); see Heb. x. 22, xii. 24; 1 Pet. 
 i, 2; 1 John i. 8. 
 
 Now, in the guilt-offering we find but little stress laid upon 
 the manipulation of the blood. The only direction given (vii. 2) 
 is: “ The priest shall scatter, or pour (PU, προσχεῖν, fundere), it 
 round about upon the altar” (see Luke xxii. 20, ἐκχυνόμενον). 
 It was, indeed, to be received by the priest, and poured 
 out,—this was necessary to the completion of the sacrifice,— 
 but we read nothing of the sprinkling seven times towards 
 the vail, as in the case of the sin-offering. Neither is the 
 imposition of the hand enjoined. But there is a peculiarity 
 very plain and striking in this offering, marking it as distinct 
 from the sin-offering. The victim was in every case to bea 
 ram without blemish (ws), or (for the leper or Nazarite) a 
 male lamb (23), and of a certain value: “According to thy 
 estimation (IDW3, τιμῆς) of silver of shekels, according to the holy 
 shekel.” The early Jews explain this as intimating that the 
 ram must be worth at least two shekels; but whether or not 
 this be implied, the language clearly intimates a certain value 
 as the standard required, the main point being in this case 
 the typical value of the offering made. In addition to this, 
 the offerer, who in every case was an individual (not a collec- 
 tive company), was to make restitution to the person injured : 
 “ He who hath sinned shall restore that which he took violently 
 away: he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add 
 the fifth part more unto ut, and give it unto him to whom it 
 appertaineth in the day of his guilt-offering,’ Lev. vi. 5, 6. 
 
190 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII, 
 
 Again, there is this striking proviso in Num. v. 8: “Jf the 
 man have no kinsman (3) to recompense (vind) the trespass 
 unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the 
 priest.” The supposition here is, that the injured man is dead, 
 and has no (Px, redeemer) near of kin, whose duty it was to 
 look after his deceased kinsman’s rights (Lev. xxv. 25). In 
 this case the guilt in its total (ΝΞ ipvN"NN) was to be paid 
 to the priest. All this indicated saTIsFAcTION to God and to 
 man, so far as it could be rendered, and could be typically 
 embodied in a sacrifice of a certain value. As if to add to 
 the value of the guilt-offering, and to show that its τιμή was 
 the essential feature, it was provided that the body of the 
 victim, after the fat had been consumed, should belong to the ἡ 
 priests, and be eaten by them; not carried without the camp 
 and consumed, as with the sin-offering. Once more, as to the 
 blood of the guilt-offering, it was, in the case of the leper, 
 enjoined that the priest should “take some of the blood and 
 put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that was to be 
 cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the 
 great toe of his right foot.” In the sin-offering we had the 
 sprinkling of the blood towards the mercy-seat only ; never 
 towards the sinner. In the guilt-offering, which specially 
 embodied the worth and value of the victim, and prefigured 
 the rendering of satisfaction, we have the application of the 
 blood to the offerer. The value of the DUN gave efficacy to 
 the sacrifice manwards; and it typified, in the case of the 
 leper, the cleansing of the conscience by the blood of Christ. 
 It was accepted as a satisfaction for the sin of the guilt- 
 offerer. It thus embodied and prefigured Him who was the 
 τιμή for the world’s sin, and set forth the satisfaction which 
 He would render in His spotless purity as the only-begotten 
 Son of God. 
 
 Now, in Isaiah’s great prophecy, the Servant of Jehovah is 
 presented in both these aspects. He is described as brought 
 to the slaughter like the Paschal lamb, which was itself a 
 propitiatory offering, and was accompanied with the sprinkling 
 
SIN- AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS, 191 
 
 of the blood upon the altar (2 Chron. xxx. 15, 19, xxxv. 11). 
 He is described as suffering a vicarious death, bearing “ the 
 iniquity of us all,’ and thus becoming a SIN-OFFERING for us, 
 verses 5—8. (See Dr. Burton (Homily on Isa. 1111.) : “The Lord 
 hath laid on Him, in allusion to the sin-offering under the 
 Levitical law, where the suppliant, laying his hand on the head 
 of the victim, and there making confession of his sins, by that 
 act transferred the penal effect of them to the substitute, by 
 the sacrifice of which he hoped to obtain a remission of the 
 punishment.”) And He is also described as pure and spotless, 
 without deceit or violence,—the righteous Servant of Jehovah, 
 who makes HIS SOUL a GUILT-OFFERING of infinite value, who 
 gives Himself for us, and by His obedience unto death renders 
 a full and adequate satisfaction for the debt due. The blend- 
 ing of two classes of propitiatory offerings in Him is more 
 fully illustrated in the New Testament. Jesus Himself 
 declared that He, “the Good Shepherd,’ would “lay down His 
 life for the sheep” (John x. 15), thus representing His sacri- 
 ficial work as a sin-offering. And we also find Him declaring 
 that He came “to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 
 xx, 28), that His blood was to be shed for His disciples (Luke 
 xxii. 20), thus representing it as a guilt-offering (compare also 
 Matt. xxvii. 9 with Zech. xi. 12, 13). The Apostle Paul de- 
 scribes His work as a “ propitiation through faith in His blood ;” 
 and he also speaks of the Redeemer’s sacrifice as a guilt-offering, 
 when he says: “ He gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 
 11. 6); “ Ye are not your own (1 Cor. vi. 20), ye are bought with 
 a price,’ τιμῆς, the word so often used by the LXX. to denote 
 the estimate of the ram of the guilt-offering. (See also Gal. 
 iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 17-21.) The Apostle Peter in like manner 
 speaks of “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ;’ and 
 says: “ He bare our sins in His own body on the tree ;” and 
 again: “ Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as 
 of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” In the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews the parallel is still more fully dwelt upon: 
 “ He was once offered to bear the sins of many ;” “ By His own 
 
 ΄ 
 
192 NOTE TO ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained 
 eternal redemption for us” (the sin-offering). “ Through the 
 Eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God.” “Lo, 
 I come to do Thy will, O my God; by the which will we are 
 sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once 
 for all” (the guilt-offering). And the Apostle John, who in 
 his first Epistle (11. 2) says: “He 18 the propitiation for our 
 sins,’ in the Revelation ascribes “glory and dominion unto 
 Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own 
 blood ;” and repeatedly represents Him as “a lamb as it 
 had been slain,’ “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
 world.” : 
 
PREVIOUS LITERATURE AND CRITICAL AIDS MADE 
 USE OF AND REFERRED TO. 
 
 I. WoRKS UPON ISAIAH LIII. ONLY. 
 
 D. IsAAct ABRABANIELIS et R. Mosis ALSCHECHI: Comment. in 
 prophetiam tricessimam Esaiz Prophete, 1.¢. 111. 13-liv. 
 Lugduni Batavorum, 1631. 
 ANDRE Rivet: Explicatio Esaiz liii. ; Opera Theol., vol. 11. 
 Roterodami, 1651, fol. 
 Mel Celi, medulla evangelii, or the Prophet Isaiah’s Crucifix ; being 
 an exposition of the fifty-third of Isaiah. Delivered in 
 Week-day Lectures in the city of York. By THomas CAL- 
 VERT, Minister of the Gospel. London, 1657. 
 ALEXANDRI Mort: ad Esaiz prophetz, caput liii., de perpessionibus 
 et gloria Messiz Note ac Diatribe. Amstelodami, 1658. ᾿ 
 A Practical Exposition on the whole Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah. 
 By the late Reverend Divine, THomas Manton, D.D. 
 London, 1703. 
 A Commentary on the Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah, with an 
 Appendix of Queries. By S. Harris, D.D., F.R.S., late 
 His Majesty’s Professor of Modern History in the Univer- 
 
 sity of Cambridge. London, 1735. 
 JOHANNIS Marcki1: Analysis Exegetica, cap. liii. Isa., Opuscula, 
 vol. 1. Pp. 1-188. Groning, 1748. 4°. 
 Burton, Joun, D.D.: Homily on Isaiah liii. Occasional Sermons, 
 io vol, ii. Oxford, 1764. 8°. 
 DuruAM, JAMES: Christ Crucified: Seventy-two Sermons on Isaiah 
 1π|. 7th ed. Glasgow, 1779. 85. 
 
 N 
 
194 CRITICAL AIDS. 
 
 Commentatio philologico-critica in locum Esaie lii. 13-liii. 12. 
 
 Edidit Cor. DAv. ANT. MARTINI. Rostochii, 1791. 
 
 Observatt. critice ad Oraculum Esaianum, cap. lii. 13-liii. fin., ex 
 
 antiquis maxime versionibus. Pre. Pu. J. MULLER, resp. 
 
 Jo. HENR. BreRLE. (Named by Gesenius.) Argent. 4°. 
 ScuustTer, K. G.: Jesaiz orationes prophet. lii. 7-liii. 12, explic. 
 
 Gottingen, 1794. 
 
 HAMBLETON, JOHN: Sermons on Isaiah 11. London, 1831. 8°. 
 
 MacCauvt, A., D.D.: Doctrine and Interpretation of Isaiah liii. 
 
 Pp. 39. London, 1845. 12°. 
 
 11. WorKS BEARING UPON THE Book oF ISAIAH, AND THE 
 
 LATER PROPHECIES GENERALLY. 
 
 JOHANNIS CALVINI: Commentarii in Jesaiam prophetam. 
 Amstelodami, 1667. 
 Commentarius in librum prophetiarum Esaie. CAMPEGII VIT- 
 RINGA. Leovardie, 1720. 
 L. DE Dieu: Animadversiones Vet. Test. Lugd. Bat., 1648. 4°. 
 Isaiah : A New Translation, with Notes. By Ropert Lowts, D.D. 
 5th ed. Edinburgh, 1807. 
 Ern. Frip. Car. RoSENMULLERI: Scholia in partem tertiam libri 
 Jesaiani. Editio secunda. Lipsiz, 1820. 
 Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar iiber den Jesaia. 
 Von WILHELM GESENIUS. Leipzig, 1821. 
 Ueber die Echtheit simmtlicher in dem Buche Jesaia enthaltenen 
 Weissagungen. Von ADOLPH FRIEDRICH KLEINERT. 
 Berlin, 1829. 
 Ἐς Hirzia: Der Prophet Jesaia iibersetzt und ausgelegt. 
 Heidelberg, 1833. 
 The Later Prophecies of Isaiah. By ΨΦΟΒΈΡΗ ADDISON ALEXANDER. 
 New York, 1847. 
 E. W. HENGSTENBERG : Christology, vol. ii. Translated in Clark’s 
 Theol. Lib. 1856. 
 The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, translated from the original 
 Hebrew, with a Commentary critical, philological, and exe- 
 getical. By E. HenpErson, D.D. 2d ed. London, 1857. 
 
CRITICAL AIDS. 195 
 
 Der Prophet Jesaia erklirt von Dr. AUGUST KNOBEL. Dritte Aufl. 
 Leipzig, 1861. 
 The Authenticity and Messianic Interpretation of the Prophecies of 
 
 Isaiah. By R. PAYNE Suir, M.A. Oxford, 1862. 
 Introduction to the Old Testament. By SamureL Davipson, D.D. 
 Vol. III. London, 1863. 
 
 The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ; being the Boyle 
 Lectures for 1868 (with Note on the Authorship of Isaiah). 
 
 By Stanuey Leatues, M.A. London, 1868. 
 Biblischer Commentar iiber den Propheten Jesaia. Von FRANZ 
 DELITZsSCH. Zweite Ausg. Leipzig, 1869. 
 The Book of Isaiah, Chronologically Arranged. By J. K. CHEYNE, 
 M.A. London, 1870. 
 
 Prophecy a Preparation for Christ ; Bampton Lecture, 1869. By 
 R. Payne Smitu, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 2d ed. 
 
 London, 1871. 
 
 The Great Prophecy of Israel’s Restoration (Isaiah, chapters 
 
 xl.-lxvi.). A Bible-Reading for Schools. By MatTHEew 
 
 ARNOLD, D.C.L. 3d ed. London, 1872. 
 The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, with Notes. By Cur. Worps- 
 wortH, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln. London, 1873. 
 
 Origenis Hexapla. By F. Frenp, A.M. Oxford, 1875. 
 
11, 
 30, 
 42, 
 46, 
 76, 
 
 130, 
 
 136, 
 
 137, 
 138, 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 line 25, 
 de) 21, 
 » 31, 
 » 90, 
 37 23, 
 » 290, 
 99 15, 
 22 4, 
 ” 21, 
 
 for extasis read ecstasis. 
 + ni. & pe iii te: 
 
 » TRY » TOY. 
 
 » ΠΟΎΣ ., Nevan- 
 
 .» xvii, ,, αἰνῇ. 
 transpose the Syriac words. 
 for reditit read redidit. 
 
 p 
 ” [12> 3) 1:5: 
 τ =x 
 
 » take ,, taken. 
 
 MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Lately published, foolscap 8vo, cloth, 2s., post free, 
 
 CECUMENICAL COUNCILS: 
 
 Six Lectures. 
 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1, THEIR CLAIMS CONSIDERED. 
 
 . THE GREEK COUNCILS. 
 
 . LATIN COUNCILS UNDER PAPAL INFLUENCE. 
 
 . COUNCILS FOR REFORM OF HEAD AND MEMBERS. 
 5. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 
 
 me ὧδ pb 
 
 6. THE PRESENT COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN. 
 APPENDIX—THE ENCYCLICAL AND SYLLABUS, Ete. 
 
 
 
 ‘ An excellent compendium, written with ability, moderation, and clear- 
 ness. It has our hearty commendation, because it is distinguished from 
 the usual publications dealing with the Papacy, by jits manly, scholarly 
 
 character, untainted with sectarian bitterness.’—A thenzum. 
 
 ‘An admirable and well-condensed account of the great Councils of the 
 Church.’—Literary World. 
 
 ‘We regard the publication of Mr. Urwicx’s volume as quite opportune ; 
 it is an excellent compendium, a valuable vade mecum on that particular 
 department of the great Protestant controversy, which the recent proceed - 
 ings and pretensions of the Church of Rome have brought prominently to 
 
 view.’—Evangelical Repository. 
 
 Lonpon: SIMPKIN & CO:, STATIONERS’ HALL COURT. 
 ο 
 
WORKS BY THE REV. W. URWICK, M.A. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. post free, 
 
 ERRORS OF RITUALISM: 
 
 Hight Lectures. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1. THE PRIESTHOOD. 
 2. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 . BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 
 . THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 . CONFESSION. 
 . ABSOLUTION. 
 . RITUAL. 
 8. CHURCH AUTHORITY. 
 WITH A PREFACE UPON THE BENNETT JUDGMENT. 
 
 a SN i of 
 
 ‘Scholarly, clear, emphatic, convincing.’—English Independent. 
 
 ‘ Wealthy laymen could not more efficiently serve the interests of truth, 
 than by sowing these lectures broadcast throughout the length and breadth 
 of the land.’—Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 ‘ An excellent and valuable handbook on ritualistic controversy. —Saun- 
 ders’ News Letter. 
 
 
 
 8vo, pp. 32, price dd., 
 
 THE NONCONFORMISTS 
 AND THE EDUCATION ACT: 
 
 A Protest and a Plea. 
 
 Lonpon : SIMPKIN ἃ CO., STATIONERS’ HALL COURT. 
 
 
 
8vo, 10s. 6d., 
 
 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS: 
 A Compendiun of the Doctrines of Christianity. 
 Bry BISHOP MARTENSEN. 
 TRANSLATED BY 
 REV. W. URWICK, MA. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 . INTRODUCTION. 
 . THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF GOD. 
 . THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHER. 
 . THE DOCTRINE OF THE SON. 
 . THE DOCTRINE OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 ‘Every reader must rise from its perusal stronger, calmer, and more 
 hopeful, not only for the fortunes of Christianity, but of dogmatical 
 theology. —British Quarterly Review. 
 
 Or He OF DO μα 
 
 
 
 Two vols. 8vo, 21s., 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SIN. 
 
 BY DR LULIUS) MULLER. 
 
 An entirely Pew Cranslation from the ΡΠ) German Edition, by 
 REV. W. URWICK, M.A. 
 
 
 
 ‘This work, majestic in its conception and thorough in its execution, has 
 long been very influential in German theology, and we welcome this new 
 translation. Those who take the pains to master it will find it a noble 
 and admirable attempt to reconcile the highest effort of speculation in 
 the pursuit of theological truth with the most reverent acceptance of 
 the infallible determination of Scripture. In Germany it has been for 
 many years a notable obstructive to the spread of vital error and a refuge 
 for distracted minds.’—London Quarterly Review. 
 
 
 
 Two vols. 8vo, 21s., 
 
 An Introduction to the New Testament. 
 By FRIEDRICH BLEEK, 
 
 VPROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF BONN. 
 Cranslated from the Second German Evition bp 
 REV. Wo Ὁ ΠΟΙ MA. 
 
 
 
 ‘ An extremely able and learned writer.’.—Christian Observer. 
 
 ‘ A pure and chaste perception and love of truth guided Bleek in all his 
 scientific inquiries, combined with comprehensiveness and thoroughness of 
 judgment.’—Professor DORNER. 
 
 EDINBURGH: T & T. CLARK. 
 
Lately published. post δύο. cloth, 6s., with a Portrait, 
 
 THE LIFE AND LETTERS 
 
 OF THE LATE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM URWICK, 0.0... 
 
 Θὲ Dublin, 
 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 . EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION. 
 
 . LIFE AT HOXTON. 
 
 . MINISTRY AT SLIGO. 
 
 . EARLY MINISTRY IN DUBLIN. 
 
 . EFFORTS FOR IRELAND’S EVANGELIZATION, 
 . HOME LIFE. 
 
 . LATER MINISTRY IN DUBLIN. 
 
 . JUBILEE. 
 
 . LAST YEARS AND DEATH. 
 
 Ὁ ῷ A NO FP WO WY KE 
 
 ‘Mr. Urwick has discharged this duty with good taste and discretion, 
 and with great ability. The volume is a temperate and wise description of 
 the life of an eminent Christian man and minister, of many talents, who 
 had played no unimportant part in the Church life of Ireland during the 
 last half century.’—Hvangelical Magazine. 
 
 ‘A work of no ordinary merit. The fidelity with which Mr. Urwick has 
 portrayed his father’s character, and the chaste and unaffected manner in 
 which he has made it stand forth, revealed in all its native and divinely 
 cultured beauty, entitle the memoir to a very high place in biographical 
 literature.’—Jrish Congregational Magazine. 
 
 ‘ We are thankful for the living record of a well-known man, and com- 
 mend the book to our readers with much satisfaction. We heartily advise 
 ministers especially to peruse this Life. It will prove stimulating and full 
 of encouragement.’—English Independent. 
 

 
DATE DUE 
 
 ’ 
 
 ae 
 cee ΝΕ 
 
 
 
 sol Want 
 = 
 io 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 PRINTEDINU.S.A. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 Η