[ [1]] One needs only to consider passages such as this, to be enabled to distinguish between the ideal and real Present, and to be convinced of the utter futility of the chief argument against the genuineness of the second part, viz., that the Babylonish exile appears as present. "Proceeding from the certainty of deliverance"--so Hitzig remarks--"the Prophet here beholds in spirit that going on, to which, in chap. xl. 9, he exhorts." If the Prophet beholds at all in the spirit, why should he not see in spirit the misery also?
[ [2]] Simonis. Onom.: יזיה, quem aspergat, i.e., purificet et expiet Domimus; Gesenius: quod vix aliter explicari potest quam: quem consperget, i.e., expiabit Jehova. Fürst gives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be untenable.
[ [3]] In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have referred to the LXX: οὕτω θαυμάσονται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐπʼ αὐτῳ̂; but even Martini remarks: "From a dark passage, they have tried, by ingenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever."
[ [4]] Thus Theodoret says: "For they who did not receive the prophetic promises and announcements, but served idols, shall, through the messengers of the truth, see the power of the promised One, and perceive His greatness." Jerome: "The rulers of the world, who had not the Law and the Prophets, and to whom no prophecies concerning Him were given, even they shall see and perceive. By the comparison with them, the hardness of the Jews is reproved, who, although they saw and heard, yet verified Isaiah's prophecy against them." Calvin: "The Jews had, through the Law and the Prophets, heard something of Christ, but to the Gentiles He was altogether unknown. Hence it follows that these words properly refer to the Gentiles."
[ [5]] According to Knobel, the author is supposed to speak, in chap. liii. 1, in his own name and that of the other prophets; in vers. 2-6, in the name of the whole 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.
[ [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.
[ [7]] The double למו in Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to Israel, not to God. In reference to the למו in Is. xliv. 15, J. H. Michaelis remarks: iis talibus diis. ver. 7. But the suffix rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. מהם in ver. 15. If construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2, משכיל 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 § 247 d.
[ [8]] Thus Bähr, 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 נפש which is connected with it, which is in it, whose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. The נפש 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 נפש in the sacrificial blood, is, according to this passage, the נפש of him who offers up the sacrifice.