each other as regards the highest hopes of the people. The national conviction of the inspiration of the prophets, which formed the foundation of their activity and efficiency, could, in that case, not have arisen at [Pg 205] all. The same arguments decide partly also against a modification of this explanation which evidently has proceeded from embarrassment only,[1] against those who, by the Servant of God, understand the better portion of Israel,--such as _Maurer_, _Ewald_, _Oehler_ (_Ueber den Knecht Gottes_, _Tübinger Zeitschrift_, 1840. The latter differs from the other supporters of this view in this, that, according to him, the notion of the ideal Israel which, he thinks, prevails in chap. xlii. and xlix., is, in chap. liii., raised to the view of an individual--the Messiah), _Knobel_ ("The theocratic substance of the people, to which especially the prophets and priests belonged.") By this modification, the explanation which makes the people the subject, loses its only apparent foundation, inasmuch as it can no more appeal to those passages in which Israel is spoken of as the Servant of the Lord; for it is obvious that, in these, not merely the pious portion of the people is spoken of. At the very outset, in ver. 19, the whole of the people are undeniably designated by the Servant of the Lord. It is they only who are blind and deaf in a spiritual point of view. The whole people, and not a portion of them, are in the condition of servitude, ver. 22. In ver. 24, Jacob and Israel are expressly mentioned. The whole people, and not merely the pious portion, are objects of the Lord's election (chap. xli. 8, xliv. 1, 2); the whole people are to be redeemed from Babylon, chap. xlviii. 20. The hypothesis of the pious portion of the people can as little account for the unexceptional use of the singular, as the hypothesis of the whole people; like it, it isolates the prophecies of the Servant of God, and brings them into contradiction with all the other prophecies, which assign to Christ the same things that are here assigned to the Servant of God. But what is especially in opposition to this hypothesis is ver. 3, where the Servant of God is designated as the Saviour of the poor and afflicted, which, in the first instance, are no other than the better portion of the people; as well as other reasons, which we shall bring out in commenting upon chap. liii. by which section the hypothesis is altogether overthrown.