μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ... καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι. The defilement by dead bodies, against which the water of purification was specially used, is the most significant symbol of sinners and sins.--4. "It is, in general, not probable that the Servant of God, who farther down is described as a sacrificial beast (!),--who, by taking upon Himself the sins of His people, dies for them, should here appear as the High Priest justifying them." Thus _Umbreit_ argues. But in opposition to this view, it is sufficient to refer to: "He shall justify," in chap. liii. 11, which is parallel to "He shall sprinkle." That which, in the typical sacrifices, is separated, is, in the antitypical, most closely connected. Even at the very first beginnings of sacred history, it was established for all times, that the difference between him who offers up, and that which is offered up, should not go beyond the territory of animal sacrifice. But there is the less ground for setting aside the reference to the priestly office of the Messiah, that, even before Isaiah, David, in Ps. cx. 4, designates Christ as the true High Priest on account of the atonement to be made by Him; and, after Isaiah, Zechariah says in chap. vi. 13: "And He sitteth and ruleth upon the throne, and He is a Priest upon His throne."--It has now become current to derive יזה from נזה in the signification "to leap"--"He shall cause to leap. This explanation made its appearance at first in a very cautious way." _Martini_ says: "I myself feel how very far from a right and sure interpretation that is, which I am now, but very timidly, to advance, regarding the sense of the received reading יזה." By and by, however, expositors hardened themselves against the decisive objections which stand in the way of it. These objections are the following. 1. The Hebrew _usus loquendi_ is in נזה so sure, that we are not entitled to take the explanation from the Arabic. The verb is, in Hebrew, never used except of _fluids_. In _Kal_, it does not mean "to leap," but "to spatter," Lev. vi. 20 (27): "And upon whose garment is _spattered_ of the blood;" 2 Kings ix. 33; Is. lxiii. 5. In _Hiphil_, it is set apart and used exclusively for the holy sprinklings; and the more frequently it occurs in this signification, the less are we at liberty to deviate from it. 2. "He shall make to leap" would be far too indefinite,--a circumstance [Pg 273] which appears from the vague and arbitrary conjectures of the supporters of this view. _Gesenius_, in his Commentary, _Stier_, and others, think of a leaping for joy, in support of which they have quoted the _Kamus_, according to which the verb is used of wanton asses! According to _Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_, _Hofmann_, and others, the Gentiles are to leap up, in order to show their _reverence_ for the Servant of God. According to _Hitzig_ and others, it is to leap for _astonishment_, while, according to _Umbreit_ and others, it is for