הוא "He" stands in front, in order emphatically to point out Him who suffered as a substitute, in contrast to those who had really deserved the punishment: "He, on account of our transgressions." There is no reason for deviating:, in the case of חלל, from the original signification "to pierce," and adopting the general signification "to wound;" the LXX. ἐτραυματίσθη. _The chastisement of our peace_ is the chastisement whereby peace is acquired for us. Peace stands as an individualizing designation of salvation; in the world of contentions, peace is one of the highest blessings. Natural man is on all sides surrounded by enemies; δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Rom. v. 1, and peace with God renders all other enemies innocuous, and at last removes them altogether. The peace is inseparable from the substitution. If the Servant of God has borne our sins, He has thereby, at the same time, acquired peace; for, just as He enters into our guilt, so we now enter into His reward. The justice of God has been satisfied through Him; and thus an open way has been prepared for His bestowing peace and salvation. The _chastisement_ can, according to the context, be only an actual one, only such as consists in the infliction of some _evil_. It is in misconception and narrowness of view that the explanation of the followers of _Menke_ originated: "The instruction for our peace is with Him." This explanation militates against the whole context, in which not the _doctrine_ but the _suffering_ of the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelism [Pg 285] with: "By His wounds we are healed;" against the עליו, "upon Him," which, according to a comparison with: "He bore our disease, and took upon Him our pains," must indicate that the punishment lay upon the sufferer like a pressing _burden_. It is only from aversion to the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, that we can account for the fact, that that doctrine could be so generally received by that theological school. More candid are the rationalistic interpreters. Thus _Hitzig_ remarks: "_The chastisement of our peace_ is not a chastisement which would have been salutary for our morality, nor such as might serve for our salvation, but according to the parallelism, such as has served for our salvation, and has allowed us to come off safe and unhurt." _Stier_, too, endeavours to explain the "chastisement of our peace," in an artificial way. According to him, there is always implied in מוסר the tendency towards setting right and healing the chastised one himself; but wherever this word occurs, a retributive pain and destruction are never spoken of But, in opposition to this view, there is the fact that מוסר does not by any means rarely occur as signifying the punishments which are inflicted upon stiff-necked obduracy, and which bear a destructive character, and which, therefore, cannot be derived from the principle