Preterite.[1] Compare לקח in ver. 8, נשא in ver. 12. This affords a sure proof that we are here altogether on an ideal territory. The ancient translators too have not understood the Preterites as a designation of the real Past, and frequently render them by Futures. Thus the LXX. ver. 14: ἐκστήσονται--ἀδοξήσει; _Aqui._ and _Theod._, ver. 2, ἀναβήσεται.--It is farther asserted, that the idea of a suffering and expiating Messiah is foreign to the Old Testament, and stands in contradiction even to its prevailing views of the Messiah. But this objection cannot be of any weight; nor can it prove anything, as long as, in the Church of Christ, the authority of Christ is still acknowledged, who Himself declares that His whole suffering had been foretold in the books of the Old Testament, and explained to His disciples the prophecies concerning it. Even the fact, that at [Pg 329] the time when Christ appeared the knowledge of a suffering Messiah was undeniably possessed by the more enlightened, proves that the matter stands differently. This knowledge is shown not only by the Baptist, but also by Simeon, Luke ii. 34, 35. An assertion to the contrary can proceed only from the erroneous opinion, that every single Messianic prophecy exhibits the whole view of the Messiah, whereas, indeed, the Messianic announcements bear throughout a fragmentary, incidental character,--a mode of representation which is generally prevalent in Scripture, and by which Scripture is distinguished from a system of doctrines. But even if there had existed an appearance of such a contradiction, it would long ago have been removed by the fulfilment. But even the appearance of a contradiction is here inadmissible, inasmuch as the Servant of God is here not only represented as suffering and expiating, but, at the same time, as an object of reverence to the whole Gentile world; and the _ground_ of this reverence is His suffering and expiation. As regards the other passages of the Old Testament where a suffering Messiah is mentioned, we must distinguish between the Messiah simply suffering, and the Messiah suffering as a substitute. The latter, indeed, we meet with in this passage only. But to make up for this isolated mention, the representation here is so full and exhaustive, so entirely excludes all misunderstanding, except that which is bent upon misunderstanding, or which is the result of evil disposition, is so affecting and so indelibly impressive, is indeed so exactly in the tone of doctrinal theology, and therefore different from the ordinary treatment, which is always incidental, and requires to be supplemented from other passages, that this single isolated representation, which sounds through the whole of the New Testament, is quite sufficient for the Church. The suffering and dying Messiah, on the other hand, we meet with frequently in other passages of the Old Testament also, although, indeed, not so frequently as the Messiah in glory. In this light He is brought before