s, at the transfiguration, the words [Greek: autou akouete] are
at once added from Deut. xviii. 15. The name of the Servant of God
was not high enough fur the sublime moment; the _Son_ formed, in the
second passage, the contrast to the _mere_ servants of God, Moses and
Elijah.--In Matt. xii. 17-21, ver. 1-3 are quoted, and referred to
Christ. The Messianic explanation of chap. xlii., xlix. lies at the
foundation of all the other passages also, where Christ is spoken of as
the [Greek: pais Theou]. In Acts iii. 13: [Greek: edoxase ton paida]
[Pg 199] [Greek: autou Iesoun], we shall be obliged to follow _Bengel_
in explaining it by: _ministrum suum_, partly on account of Matt. xii.
18, and because the LXX. often render [Hebrew: ebd] by [Greek: pais];
partly on account of the obvious reference to the Old Testament
passages which treat of the Servant of God, and on account of the
special allusion to chap. xlix. 3 in the [Greek: edoxase] (LXX. [Greek:
doulos mou ei su [Israel] kai en soi eudoxasthesomai]). And so likewise
in Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: [Greek: epi ton hagion paida sou Iesoun, hon
echrisas], where the last words refer to chap. lxi. 1; farther, in Acts
iv. 30. In all these passages it is not the more obvious [Greek:
doulos], but [Greek: pais] which is put, in order to remove the low
notions which, in Greek, attach to the word [Greek: doulos].

Taking her stand partly on these authorities, partly on the natural
sense of the passage, the Christian Church has all along referred the
passage to Christ; and even expositors such as _Clericus_, who,
everywhere else, whensoever it is possible, seek to set aside the
Messianic interpretation, are here found among its most decided
defenders. In our century, with the awakening faith, this explanation
has again obtained general dominion; and wherever expositors of
evangelical disposition do not yet profess it, this is to be accounted
for from the still continuing influence of rationalistic tradition.

We are led to the Messianic interpretation by the circumstance that the
servant of God appears here as the antitype of Cyrus. A real person can
be contrasted with a real person only, but not with a personification,
as is assumed by the other explanations. We are compelled to explain it
of Christ by this circumstance also, that it is in Him only that the
signs of the Servant of God are to be found,--that in Him only the
covenant of God with Israel has become a truth,--that He only is