y His hand," chap. liii. 10. The fact that a person acts
wisely is, in a twofold aspect, a fruit of his connection with God:
_first_, because God is the source and fountain of all wisdom, and,
_secondly_, because from God the blessing proceeds which always
accompanies his doings. The ungodly is by God involved in circumstances
which, notwithstanding all his wisdom, make him appear as a fool.
Compare only chap. xix. 11: "The princes of Zoan become fools, the
counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish; how can
ye say unto Pharaoh: a son of the wise am I, a (spiritual) son of the
(wise) kings of ancient times?" comp. ver. 13; Job xii. 17, 20; Eccles.
ix. 11. In the second clause the Prophet puts together the verbs which
denote elevation, and still adds [Hebrew: mad] "very" in order most
emphatically to point out the glory of the exaltation of the Servant of
God.

Ver. 14. "_As many were shocked at thee--so marred from man was His
look, and His form from the sons of man_--Ver. 15. _So shall He
sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their_ [Pg 266] _mouths on
account of Him, for they who had not been told, they see, and they who
did not hear, they perceive._"

Ver. 14 contains the _protasis_, ver. 15 the _apodosis_. The former
describes the deep humiliation, the latter the highest glorification of
the Servant of God. The _so_ in ver. 14 begins a parenthesis, in which
the reason why many were shocked is stated, and which goes on to the
end of the verse. In keeping with the dramatic character of the
prophetic discourse, the Lord addresses His Servant in ver. 14: "At
thee;" while, in ver. 15, He speaks of Him in the third person: "He
shall sprinkle;" "on account of _Him_" This change has been occasioned
by the parenthetical clause which contains a remark of the Prophet, and
in which, therefore, the Servant of God could not but be spoken of in
the third person. _Haevernick_ and _Stier_ refuse to admit the existence
of a parenthesis. Their reasons: "Parentheses are commonly an
ill-invented expedient only," and: "It is not likely that the same
particle should have a different signification in these two clauses
following immediately the one upon the other," are not entirely
destitute of force, but are far-outweighed by counter-arguments. They
say that the _apodosis_ begins with the first [Hebrew: kN], and that in
ver. 15 a second _apodosis_ follows. But no tolerable thought comes out
in this way;--it is hard to