Sam. xxiv. the
people do not suffer as substitutes for the sin, which David had
committed in numbering the people; but the spirit of pride which had
incited the king to number the people, was widely spread among them.
But the fact, that the king himself was punished in his subjects, is
brought out by his beseeching the Lord, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, that He
might rather visit the sin directly upon himself The sin of David and
Bathsheba is not atoned for by the death of the child (2 Sam. xii.
15-18), for David had already obtained pardon, ver. 13. It is not the
child which suffers, but David, whose repentance was to be deepened by
this visitation. In the fact, that the whole army must suffer for what
Achan has committed (Josh. vii. 1), a distinct intimation is implied,
that the criminal does not stand alone, but that, to a certain degree,
the whole community was implicated in his guilt. Substitution is quite
out of the question, inasmuch as Achan himself, with his whole family
and posterity, was burnt. Least of all, finally, can Dan. xi. 35 come
into consideration. According to _Gesenius_, it is there said: "And
they of understanding shall fall, in order to purge, purify, and make
white those (the others)." But [Hebrew: bhM] refers rather to the
[Hebrew: mwkiliM] themselves. Thus, nowhere in the Old Testament, is
even the slightest trace found of a satisfaction to be accomplished by
man for man; nor can it be found there, because, from its very
commencement. Scripture most emphatically declares: [Greek: pantas
huph'hamartian einai], Rom. iii. 9.

The explanation, which makes the _Jewish people_ the subject, has
already been overthrown by the parallel passages, before arriving: at
the section under consideration. "Even so far back as chap. xlii. 1,
difficulties are met with," remarks _Beck_. "How is it possible that
the people who, in ver. 19 of that chapter, are described as blind and
deaf, should here appear as being altogether penetrated by the Spirit,
so as to become the teachers of the Gentiles?" "Chap. xlix. is a true
[Pg 337] cross for the interpreters." "Finally, the section, chap. l.,
_Hitzig_ himself is obliged to explain as referring to the Prophet; and
thus this interpretation forfeits the boast of most strictly holding
fast the unity of this notion."

But still more decisively is the interpretation overthrown by the
contents of the section under discussion. The Servant of God has,
according to it, voluntarily t