what is the most pleasing offering to God. The suppliant had been in distress, and praises Jehovah for deliverance from it. He is again in difficulties, and prays for speedy exemption from them, to the shame of enemies triumphing over him. It is better, however, to consider the ode as consisting of three parts (1-11, 12—21, 22—26), with the later addition of verses 27-31.

(b) The passages in which the death of Messiah is announced are said to be Psalm xvi. 9-11, where the speaker expresses a hope that Jehovah would not leave him in the grave, but raise him up again. We have already seen that the reference is to deliverance from deadly dangers. "Thou wilt not leave my soul to the under-world, nor suffer thy pious ones to see the pit,"―words containing nothing about a resurrection from the grave. The passage in Zechariah xii. 10, is inappropriate, as we have already seen. So is xiii. 7. Neither depicts the death of Messiah. And in Daniel ix. 26, the English version should be, "An anointed one shall be cut off and have no successor."

The only place in which the Messiah's death seems to be mentioned is the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, which will be examined hereafter.

(c) Some places are adduced where it is alleged that the purport of Messiah's sufferings and death is given, viz., the removal of sin.

"To finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness," &c. (Dan. ix. 24.)

According to the context and the right sense of these words, the prophet states that seventy years are appointed till the transgressions and misdeeds of Antiochus Epiphanes reach their height, till the guilt of Israel be expiated, and everlasting righteousness brought in by the reign of Messiah. At the end of the abominations committed by Antiochus in Jerusalem and the temple, the writer expects the rebuilding of the city, the restoration of the temple, the anointing or dedication of the altar (the most holy), as the commencement of the Messianic age. So far from atonement being connected with the death of the Messiah, the punishment which had come upon Israel for her sins and the sufferings she had endured from enemies, are the proximate cause of restoration to the Divine favour.

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." (Zechariah xiii. 1.)

The prophet describes the Messianic time in figurative language. A spring of pure water flowing from the sanctuary washes away all moral defilement. The people receive a new spirit, and all their sins are blotted out. The person and death of the Messiah are not referred to.

The only part of the Old Testament on which those who believe in a suffering and atoning Messiah can plausibly rely, is the latter portion of Isaiah-the deutero-Isaiah, as the writer is properly called, for there is no doubt that he followed the real Isaiah after a long interval. The fiftythird chapter especially is interpreted in that sense. Who is the servant of Jehovah whom the unknown prophet describes? Is he Messiah?

The servant of Jehovah is not the Messiah, because,

1. The Old Testament never describes him as suffering, despised and rejected, imprisoned and put to death. All Messianic prophecies have a consolatory character, being meant to cheer the people with the hopes of a bright future. Inspired seers direct the attention of their downcast countrymen to a great national Saviour who should restore the kingdom to its ancient glory, and surpass David himself in the attributes of a righteous ruler. The Messianic reign is always introduced to comfort Israel. In the present instance, the picture would have an opposite effect. A suffering, despised, murdered Messiah is not fitted to raise, but depress, the hopes of the nation.

2. The Messiah is always a theocratic king. Here he does not appear in that character. Jehovah smites and bruises him. He is carried off by oppression and judgment. Afterwards, as the reward of suffering, he receives a share of booty and wealth. This is unlike his portrait in other books of the Bible.

3. It is strange that he is never mentioned distinctly, if he be intended. Other prophets speak plainly of the Messiah. Why does not the great unknown do the same?

4. The interchange of the past and future tenses shews that the writer describes one that has a past and a future, a present person or persons. This fact excludes the idea of Messiah, who could only be described as future. It is a

mere assumption on the part of Hengstenberg that the prophet takes his stand between the suffering and exaltation of the Messiah, whence the former appears to him as past, the latter as future.

5. The foreground of the prophet's view in chapters xl. -lxv. is neither the ultimate and highest realization of kingship, nor the inauguration of a perfect kingdom. Yet this is what we should expect if Messiah were described. Instead of a personal ruler, or a kingdom of complete prosperity, the foreground of the picture is the fulfilment of Israel's destination, or the future glory of the church. A revived and glorified Israel appears; a new theocracy, over which Jehovah presides; a nation characterized by love and justice, gathering into itself not only the seed of David but the whole human race.

6. There are clear traces of a plural in the eighth and ninth verses. in in the former always implies a collective, a fact not invalidated by the example which Hulsius adduces from Isaiah xliv. 15: in is plural. Thus Messiah is excluded.

By the servant of Jehovah we must understand Israel, the collective nation, for the following reasons:

1. He is called Israel in xlix. 3. The word Israel here

is not spurious, as Gesenius suppo This sense is given by the Septuagint, which inserts Israel and Jacob in Isaiah xlii. 1, to explain "my servant" or "my elect." It is arbitrary with Hengstenberg to interpret Israel as meaning the Messiah.

2. His death is spoken of in the plural, shewing that the phrase has a collective sense (liii. 9).

3. He is a present person who has a past and a future. 4. He is a religious teacher of the Gentiles (xlii. 1—4, xlix. 6, liii. 11). The Messiah is never called a prophet in the Scriptures, nor is he represented as an instructor. Only in Sohar, Tikkune Sohar, and Sohar Chadash, are there a few passages which appear to indicate such office; and they are vague, not to say obscure.*

5. He procures righteousness for many by guiding and instructing them; intercedes for them with Jehovah, and thus obtains the forgiveness of their sins. He is a mediator

Schoettgen, Vol. II. p. 665 et seq.

and advocate. In the Jewish Scriptures, Messiah is neither a priest, nor an advocate with God on behalf of Israel. He is not a sacrifice for sin. The book of Sohar, with the Tikkune, and Sohar Chadash, on which Schoettgen mainly relies for proof of the priesthood, is an inadequate witness even for the post-talmudic existence of that opinion.

6. Though he dies a violent death, he is resuscitated immediately after, living long, and performing works acceptable to God. His progeny is numerous; he looks upon his deeds and has full enjoyment in them. He takes part with the mighty and shares the spoil of the conquerors.

The only view of the servant of Jehovah that satisfies all the circumstances of the case identifies him with the nation generally, the exiles in Babylon about to return home with high expectations of happier times. This Israel is personified and idealized. The description shews considerable diversities of form. Sometimes one part of the nation is distinguished from another; the faithful worshipers of Jehovah from those who had apostatized. Sometimes the prophets and leaders are singled out. But the essence of the theocracy, the genuine representatives of the chosen people, are never lost sight of. They are the prophet's ideal, whom he holds up as Israel proper, and around whom his bright colours. crown. It is to their sufferings that an expiatory value is assigned. They represent the whole, being Jehovah's witnesses whom He rewards and exalts after their sufferings have wrought out the salutary ends they were destined to effect. Thus the servant of Jehovah has a collective aspect, though painted as an individual. He is an aggregate, not an unit.

We think it not unlikely that lii. 13-liii. may have been written by another than the author of xl.-lxvi. generally, for there are some peculiarities which seem to separate it from the surrounding chapters. But the view of the servant of Jehovah in it is substantially the same as that of the preceding and subsequent contexts. The one author must have lived in the exile-time as well as the other. Perhaps also he had in view some individual who had suffered a shameful death in the cause of truth, employing him as a vehicle for the more vivid portraiture of idealized Israel. These, however are conjectures.

The passage contains the idea of vicarious expiation.

The pious, patient, faithful and true adherents of Jehovah suffer for the sinful and procure the remission of their iniquity. The punishment of others' sins falls upon them, and Jehovah pardons the guilty in consequence.

Those who argue for the identity of Jehovah's servant with Messiah, forget that the prophet describes an ideal Israel, ideal in theory as well as in fact. It is therefore beside the mark to raise up difficulties against our interpretation by converting poetical language into literal prose. The portrait of the whole Jewish nation as the elect servant suffering and redeeming, enlightening the Gentiles, not conquering them with the sword, restored glorified and exalted, is the prophet's picture, in which a personal king is absorbed in the larger conception of a whole people realizing the theocratic function under Jehovah himself; a conception involving a return to the time antecedent to Saul, when the nation had no visible head. The same class of expositors also forget that the spiritual regeneration of the people is never said to be the work of Messiah, but of themselves. They repent and turn to Jehovah when Messiah comes; not as the effect of his advent or power, but as their own act. Hence the eleventh verse is unsuitable if a personal Messiah be described.

The doctrine of a suffering Messiah is unknown to the apocryphal books, as well as to Josephus and Philo.

After this survey of the evidence, it is surely surprising to find grave doctors of the English Church asserting, "The portrait of an afflicted and suffering Messiah is too minutely sketched by the Psalmist (Psalm xxii., xlii., xliii., lxix.), by Isaiah (ch. liii.), by Zechariah (ch. xi.-xiii.), and Daniel (ix. 24-27), to be ignored even by reluctant Jews."

Let us now consider whether the New Testament supports the opinion that the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus expected a suffering and dying Messiah. No traces of it are found among them, any more than among their forefathers. When Jesus spoke of his death, the people answered him, "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou, the Son of Man must be lifted up?" The apostles themselves shared the common belief of their countrymen, viz., that the Messiah would deliver the Jewish nation from its enemies, the conquerors to whom they were subject, and establish a