hor often
shows himself to be biassed by the views of the time, and especially,
in the interest of Neology, seeks to do away with the doctrine of
satisfaction); _Krueger_, _Comment. de Jes. liii., interpret_; _Jahn_,
_Append. ad Hermen. fasc ii._; _Steudel_, [Pg 327] _Observ. ad Jes.
liii._, _Tuebingen_ 1825, 26; _Sack_, in the _Apologetik_; _Reinke_,
_exegesis in Jes. liii._, Muenster 1836; _Tholuck_, in his work: _Das A.
T. in N. T._; _Haevernick_, in the lectures on the Theology of the Old
Testament; _Stier_, in the Comment. on the second part of Isaiah.

[Footnote 1: The author of the article: _Ueber die Mess. Zeiten_ in
_Eichhorn's Bibliothek d. bibl. Literatur_, Bd. 6, p. 655, confesses
quite candidly, that the Messianic interpretation would soon find
general approbation among Bible expositors, had they not, in recent
times, obtained the conviction, "that the prophets do not foretel any
thing of future things, except what they know and anticipate without
special divine inspiration."]

* * * * * * * * * *

II. THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.

The arguments against the Messianic interpretation cannot be designated
in any other way than as _insignificant_. There is not one among them
which could be of any weight to him who is able to judge. It is
asserted that the Messiah is nowhere else designated as the Servant of
God. Even if this were the fact, it would not prove anything. But this
name is assigned to the Messiah in Zech. iii. 8--a passage which
interpreters are unanimous in referring to the Messiah--where the Lord
calls the Messiah His Servant _Zemach_, and which the Chaldee
Paraphrast explains by [Hebrew: mwiHa vitgli] "_Messiam et
revelabitur_;" farther, in Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, not to mention Is.
xlii. 1, xlix. 3, 6, l. 10.--It is farther asserted that in the
Messianic interpretation everything is viewed as _future_; but that
this is inadmissible for grammatical and philological reasons. The
suffering, contempt, and death of the Servant of God are here,
throughout, represented as past, since in chap. liii. 1-10, all the
verbs are in the Preterite. It is the glorification only which appears
as future, and is expressed in the Future tense. The writer, therefore,
occupies a position between the sufferings and the glorification, and
the latter is still impending. But the stand-point of the Prophet is
not an actual, but a supposed one,--not a