Among Christian interpreters, this view was always the prevailing one, was indeed the view held by the Church. _Schröder observ. ad origin. Hebr._ c. viii. § 10, raised some objections which were eagerly laid hold of, and increased by the rationalistic interpreters. Even some sound orthodox expositors allowed themselves to be thereby dazzled. _Stier_ declares "that, for this time, he must take the part of modern Exegesis against the prevailing tradition of the Church." Yet his disrelish for the doctrine of the atonement held by the Church has no doubt exercised a considerable influence in this matter; and _Hofmann_, too, in so decidedly rejecting this explanation, which rests on such strong arguments, and is not touched by any weighty counter-arguments, seems not to have been guided by exegetical reasons only. But let us submit these objections to a closer examination. 1. "The verb ought not to be construed with the Accusative of the thing to be sprinkled, but with על." _Reinke_ (in his Monograph on Is. liii.) brings forward, against this objection, the passage Lev. iv. 16, 17; but he is wrong in this, inasmuch as את is there not the [Pg 270] sign of the Accusative, but a Preposition. את ףני in the signification "before," is, elsewhere also, very frequently used. But even _Gesenius_ is compelled to agree with _Simonis_.[2] and to acknowledge that, in the proper name יזיה the verb is connected with an Accusative. The deviation is there still greater, inasmuch as the _Kal_ is, at the same time, used transitively. But even apart from that, such a deviation cannot appear strange. It has an analogy in chap. liii. 11, where הצדיק, which everywhere else is construed with the Accusative, is followed by ל; and likewise in רפא, followed by ל in chap. liii. 5. The signification of the verb, in such cases, undergoes a slight modification. הזה with על means "to sprinkle;" with the Accusative, "to sprinkle upon." This modification of the meaning has the analogy of other languages in its favour. In the Ethiopic, the verb נזח, which corresponds to the Hebrew נזה, is used of the sprinkling of both persons and things; Heb. ix. 19, xi. 28; Ps. li. 9. In Latin, we may say: _spargere aquam_, but also _spargere corpus aqua_; _aspergere quid alicui_, but also _re aliquem_, _conspergere_, _perspergere_, _respergere quem_. "Why should not this be allowed to the Jews also,"--remarks _Köcher_--"who have to make up for the defect of compound verbs by the varied use of simple verbs?" But the Prophet had a special reason, in the liberty specially afforded by the higher style, for deviating from the ordinary connection. The על had to be avoided, because, had it been put, the perception of the correspondence of the subsequent עליו with the עליך, in ver. 14, would have become more difficult.--2. It is asserted that it is against the connection; that the contrast to משם induces us to expect something corresponding.