of the followers of _Menke_ originated:
"The instruction for our peace is with Him." This explanation militates
against the whole context, in which not the _doctrine_ but the
_suffering_ of the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelism
[Pg 285] with: "By His wounds we are healed;" against the [Hebrew:
eliv], "upon Him," which, according to a comparison with: "He bore our
disease, and took upon Him our pains," must indicate that the
punishment lay upon the sufferer like a pressing _burden_. It is only
from aversion to the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ,
that we can account for the fact, that that doctrine could be so
generally received by that theological school. More candid are the
rationalistic interpreters. Thus _Hitzig_ remarks: "_The chastisement
of our peace_ is not a chastisement which would have been salutary for
our morality, nor such as might serve for our salvation, but according
to the parallelism, such as has served for our salvation, and has
allowed us to come off safe and unhurt." _Stier_, too, endeavours to
explain the "chastisement of our peace," in an artificial way.
According to him, there is always implied in [Hebrew: mvsr] the
tendency towards setting right and healing the chastised one himself;
but wherever this word occurs, a retributive pain and destruction are
never spoken of But, in opposition to this view, there is the fact that
[Hebrew: mvsr] does not by any means rarely occur as signifying the
punishments which are inflicted upon stiff-necked obduracy, and which
bear a destructive character, and which, therefore, cannot be derived
from the principle of correction, but from that of retribution only.
Thus, _e.g._, in Prov. xv. 10: "Bad _chastisement_ shall be to those
that forsake the way, and he that hateth chastisement shall die," on
which _Michaelis_ remarks: "_In antanaclasi ad correptionem amicam et
paternum, mortem et mala quaelibet inferens, in ira_," Ps. vi. 2. Of
destructive punishment, too, the verb is used in Jer. ii. 19. But one
does not at all see how the idea of "setting right" should be suitable
here; for surely, as regards the Servant of God himself, the absolutely
Righteous, the suffering here has the character of chastisement. It is
not the mere suffering, but the chastisement, which is upon Him; but
that necessarily requires that the punishment should proceed from the
principle of _retribution_, and that the Servant of God stands forth as
our Subs