people; in vers. 7-10, in his own name.
An explanation which is compelled to resort to such changes, without
their being in any way clearly and distinctly intimated, pronounces its
own condemnation.]

[Footnote 6: _Gesenius_: _Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus
hominum, in bonam partem--in malam partem_;--and in reference to the
passage under consideration: _Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines
qui iisdem cum illo studiis tenentur._ In the same manner it is
explained by _Maurer_, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.]

[Footnote 7: The double [Hebrew: lmv] in Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to
Israel, not to God. In reference to the [Hebrew: lmv] in Is. xliv. 15,
_J. H. Michaelis_ remarks: _iis talibus diis._ ver. 7. But the suffix
rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. [Hebrew: mhM] in ver. 15. If
construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2,
[Hebrew: mwkil] is used collectively. In Ps. xi. 7, the plural suffix
is to be explained from the richness and fulness of the Divine Being.
These are all the passages which _Ewald_ quotes in Sec. 247 d.]

[Footnote 8: Thus _Baehr_, _Symbolik_, ii. S. 207, says: It is not the
material elements of the blood which make it a means of expiation, but
it is the [Hebrew: npw] which is connected with it, which is in it,
whose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. The
[Hebrew: npw] is thus the centre around which, in the last instance,
everything moves. This is especially confirmed by the circumstance,
that the object of the expiation to be effected by the [Hebrew: npw] in
the sacrificial blood, is, according to this passage, the [Hebrew: npw]
of him who offers up the sacrifice.]

[Pg 311]

I. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.

A. WITH THE JEWS.

1. There cannot be any doubt that, in those earlier times, when the
Jews were still more firmly attached to the tradition of their
Fathers,--when the carnal disposition had not yet become so entirely
prevalent among them,--and when controversy with the Christians had not
made them so narrow-minded in their Exegesis, the Messianic explanation
was pretty generally received, at least by the better portion of the
people. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert
the prophecy, _e.g._, _Abenezra_, _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Moses
Nachmanides_. _Gesenius_ also says: "It was only the later Jews who
abandoned this interpretation,--no