intercession is [Pg 310] here brought into close connection with the bearing of the sin, by which Christ represents himself as being the true _sin-offering_ (comp. ver. 10, where He was designated as the true _trespass-offering_), and hence it is equivalent to: He will make intercession for sinners, by taking upon himself their sin,--of which the thief on the cross was the first instance. This close connection, and the deep meaning suggested by it, are overlooked and lost by those expositors who, in the intercession, think of prayer only. _The servant of God, on the contrary, makes intercession, by pleading before God His merit, as the ground of the acceptance of the transgressors, and of the pardon of their sins._ This is evident from the connection also in which: "For the transgressors He shall make intercession," stands with: "He was numbered with the transgressors." The vicarious suffering is thereby pointed out as the ground of the intercession. _Calvin_ says: "Under the Old Testament dispensation, the High-priest, who never went in without blood, made intercession for the people. What was there foreshadowed has been fulfilled in Christ. For, in the first place. He offered up the sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, and thus suffered the punishment due to us. And, in the second place, in order that the expiation might profit us. He undertakes the office of an advocate, and makes intercession for all who, by faith, lay hold of this sacrifice." Comp. Rom. viii. 34: ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; Hebr. ix. 24, according to which passage Christ is entered into the holy places νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; 1 John ii. 1: παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον. * * * * * * * * * * We have hitherto expounded the passage before us without any regard to the difference of the interpretation as to the whole, and have supposed the reference to Christ to be the correct one. But it is still incumbent upon us: I. to give the history of the interpretation; II. to refute the arguments against the Messianic interpretation; III. to state the arguments in favour of it; and IV. to show that the non-Messianic interpretation is untenable. [Footnote 1: One needs only to consider passages such as this, to be enabled to distinguish between the ideal and real Present, and to be convinced of the utter futility of the chief argument against the genuineness of the second part, viz., that the Babylonish exile appears as present. "Proceeding from the certainty of deliverance"--so _Hitzig_ remarks--"the Prophet here _beholds_ in spirit that going on, to which, in chap. xl. 9, he exhorts." If the Prophet beholds at all in the spirit, why should he not see in spirit the misery also?]