with
a rich, since God's providence was watching over the dead body of His
Servant. [Hebrew: vitN], in so far as it refers to the first clause,
receives its limitation by the second. Before their fulfilment, the
words had the character of a holy riddle; but the fulfilment has solved
this riddle. The designation of Joseph of Arimathea as [Greek:
anthropos plousios] in Matt. xxvi. 57, is equivalent to an express
quotation. Although it was by a special divine providence that the
Singular was chosen, yet we may suppose that, in the first instance,
the rich man here is contrasted with the wicked men, and is an ideal
person, the personified idea of the species. _In His death_ is, in
point of fact, equivalent to: "after He had died;" but,
notwithstanding, there is no necessity for giving to the [Hebrew: b]
the signification "after." Death rather denotes the _condition of
death_; _in death_ is contrasted with: _in life_. Altogether in the
same manner we find in Lev. xi. 31: "Whosoever doth touch them in their
death," for, "after they have died." _Farther_--1 Kings xiii. 31: "In
my death you shall bury me in the sepulchre." The Plural [Hebrew:
mvtiM] "the deaths," "conditions of death," cannot be adduced as a
proof that the subject of the prophecy must be a collective person;
for, in that case, rather the Plural of the suffix would be required
(Ps. lxxviii. 64 is a rare exception); and in Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10,
death is likewise spoken of in the Plural. The Plural is formed after
the analogy of [Hebrew: HiiM], for which reason it commends itself to
explain [Hebrew: arC HiiM] in the preceding verse, "land of life,"
instead of "land of the living." But the Plural can here the less
occasion any difficulty, that it is not dying which is spoken of, but
the continuing condition of death.--_Because He had done no violence_,
&c. [Hebrew: el] very frequently denotes the cause upon which the
effect depends, _e.g._, in 1 Kings xvi. 7; Ps. xliv. 23, lxix. 8; Jer.
xv. 15; Job xxxiv. 6. The whole following clause is treated as a noun.
Ordinarily, it is explained: Although, &c. But this use of [Hebrew: el]
is quite isolated; it occurs only in two passages of the Book of Job,
in x. 7 and xxxiv. 6. The former explanation is found in the Alexand.
version: [Greek: hoti anomian ouk epoiese.] The innocence is designated
negatively, and in an external manner ( [Hebrew: Hms] and [Hebrew:
mrmh] are gross sins). The reason of this is [Pg 295] in the inten