[Footnote 2: _Simonis. Onom._: יזיה, _quem aspergat_, _i.e._, _purificet et expiet Domimus_; _Gesenius_: _quod vix aliter explicari potest quam_: _quem consperget_, _i.e._, _expiabit Jehova._ _Fürst_ gives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be untenable.] [Footnote 3: In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have referred to the LXX: οὕτω θαυμάσονται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐπʼ αὐτῳ̂; but even _Martini_ remarks: "From a dark passage, they have tried, by ingenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever."] [Footnote 4: Thus _Theodoret_ says: "For they who did not receive the prophetic promises and announcements, but served idols, shall, through the messengers of the truth, see the power of the promised One, and perceive His greatness." _Jerome_: "The rulers of the world, who had not the Law and the Prophets, and to whom no prophecies concerning Him were given, even they shall see and perceive. By the comparison with them, the hardness of the Jews is reproved, who, although they saw and heard, yet verified Isaiah's prophecy against them." _Calvin_: "The Jews had, through the Law and the Prophets, heard something of Christ, but to the Gentiles He was altogether unknown. Hence it follows that these words properly refer to the Gentiles."] [Footnote 5: According to _Knobel_, the author is supposed to speak, in chap. liii. 1, in his own name and that of the other prophets; in vers. 2-6, in the name of the whole people; in vers. 7-10, in his own name. An explanation which is compelled to resort to such changes, without their being in any way clearly and distinctly intimated, pronounces its own condemnation.] [Footnote 6: _Gesenius_: _Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus hominum, in bonam partem--in malam partem_;--and in reference to the passage under consideration: _Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines qui iisdem cum illo studiis tenentur._ In the same manner it is explained by _Maurer_, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.] [Footnote 7: The double למו in Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to Israel, not to God. In reference to the למו in Is. xliv. 15, _J. H. Michaelis_ remarks: _iis talibus diis._ ver. 7. But the suffix rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. מהם in ver. 15. If construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2, משכיל is used collectively. In Ps. xi. 7, the plural suffix is to be explained from the richness and fulness of the Divine Being. These are all the passages which _Ewald_ quotes in § 247 d.]