Isaiah 53 Commentary

ISAIAH 53 COMMENTARY EDITED BY GLENN PEASE

1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 1.BARNES, “Who hath believed our report? - The main design of the prophet in all this portion of his prophecy is, undoubtedly, to state the fact that the Redeemer would be greatly exalted (see Isa_52:13; Isa_53:12). But in order to furnish a fair view of his exaltation, it was necessary also to exhibit the depth of his humiliation, and the intensity of his sorrows, and also the fact that he would be rejected by those to whom he was sent. He, therefore, in this verse, to use the language of Calvin, breaks in abruptly upon the order of his discourse, and exclaims that what he had said, and what he was about to say, would be scarcely credited by anyone. Prelimmary to his exaltation, and to the honors which would be conferred on him, he would be rejected and despised. The word ‘report’ (‫ שׁמוּעה‬shemu‛ah) denotes properly that which is heard, tidings, message, news. Margin, ‘Hearing’ or ‘doctrine.’ The Septuagint renders it, κοή Akoe ‘Rumour,’ ‘message.’ It refers to the annunciation, message, or communication which had been made respecting the Messiah. ‘The speaker here is Isaiah, and the word ‘our’ refers to the fact that the message of Isaiah and of the other prophets had been alike rejected. He groups himself with the other prophets, and says that the annunciation which they had made of the Redeemer had been disregarded The interrogative form is often assumed when it is designed to express a truth with emphasis; and the idea is, therefore, that the message in regard to the Messiah had been rejected, and that almost none had credited and embraced it. And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? - The arm is that by which we execute a purpose, and is often used as the emblem of power (see the notes at Isa_33:2; Isa_40:10). Here it denotes the omnipotence or power of God, which would be exhibited through the Messiah. ‘The sense is, ‘Who has perceived the power evinced in the work of the Redeemer? To whom is that power manifested which is to be put forth through him, and in connection with his work?’ It refers not so much, as it seems to me, to his power in working miracles, as to the omnipotence evinced in rescuing sinners from destruction. In the New Testament, the gospel is not unfrequently called ‘the power of God’ Rom_1:16; 1Co_1:18, for it is that by which God displays his power in saving people. The idea here is, that comparatively few would be brought under that power, and be benefited by it; that is, in the times, and under the preaching of the Messiah. It is to be remembered that the scene of this vision is laid in the midst of the work of the Redeemer. The prophet sees him a sufferer, despised and rejected. He sees that few come to him, and embrace him as their Saviour. He recalls the ‘report’ and the announcement which he and other prophets had made respecting him; he remembers the record which had been made

centuries before respecting the Messiah; and he asks with deep emotion, as if present when the Redeemer lived and preached, who had credited what he and the other prophets had said of him. The mass had rejected it all. The passage, therefore, had its fulfillment in the events connected with the ministry of the Redeemer, and in the fact that he was rejected by so many. The Redeemer was more successful in his work as a preacher than is commonly supposed, but still it is true that by the mass of the nation he was despised, and that the announcement which had been made of his true character and work was rejected.

2. CLARKE, “Who hath believed our report? - The report of the prophets, of John the Baptist, and Christ’s own report of himself. The Jews did not receive the report, and for this reason he was not manifested to them as the promised Messiah. ‘He came unto his own, but his own received him not.’ Before the Father he grew up as a tender plant: but to the Jews he was as a root out of a dry ground. ‘He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.’

3. GILL, “Who hath believed our report?.... Or "hearing" (a). Not what we hear, but others hear from us; the doctrine of the Gospel, which is a report of the love, grace, and mercy of God in Christ; of Christ himself, his person, offices, obedience, sufferings, and death, and of free and full salvation by him: it is a good report, a true and faithful one, and to be believed, and yet there are always but few that give credit to it; there were but few in the times of the Prophet Isaiah that believed what he had before reported, or was about to report, concerning the Messiah; and but few in the times of Christ and his apostles, whom the prophet here represented; for to those times are the words applied, Joh_12:38, the Jews had the report first made unto them, and saw the facts that were done, and yet believed not; when Gentile kings, and their subjects, listened with the most profound silence, and heard with the greatest attention and reverence, as in the latter part of the preceding chapter, to which some think this is opposed; wherefore some begin the text with the adversative particle "but". According to the Septuagint and Arabic versions, the words are directed to God the Father, for they render them, "Lord, who hath believed", &c.; and so they are quoted in the above places in the New Testament: and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? meaning either the Gospel itself, the power of God unto salvation, hidden from the generality of men; for though externally, yet not internally revealed and made known; which to do is the Lord's work, and is owing to his special grace: or Christ, who is the power of God, by whom all the works of creation, providence, grace, and salvation, are wrought; and by whom the blessings of grace are dispensed; and by whom the Lord upholds all things, and supports his people; and who was not revealed but to a very few, as the true Messiah, as God's salvation, and in them the hope of glory: or else the powerful and efficacious grace of the Spirit, and the exertion and display of it, which is necessary to a true and spiritual believing the Gospel, and the report of it; which, unless it comes with the power and Spirit of God, is ineffectual.

4. HENRY, “The prophet, in the close of the former chapter, had foreseen and foretold the kind reception which the gospel of Christ should find among the Gentiles, that nations and their kings should bid it welcome, that those who had not seen him should believe in him; and though

they had not any prophecies among them of gospel grace, which might raise their expectations, and dispose them to entertain it, yet upon the first notice of it they should give it its due weight and consideration. Now here he foretels, with wonder, the unbelief of the Jews, notwithstanding the previous notices they had of the coming of the Messiah in the Old Testament and the opportunity they had of being personally acquainted with him. Observe here, I. The contempt they put upon the gospel of Christ, Isa_53:1. The unbelief of the Jews in our Saviour's time is expressly said to be the fulfilling of this word, Joh_12:38. And it is applied likewise to the little success which the apostles' preaching met with among Jews and Gentiles, Rom_10:16. Note, 1. Of the many that hear the report of the gospel there are few, very few, that believe it. It is reported openly and publicly, not whispered in a corner, or confined to the schools, but proclaimed to all; and it is so faithful a saying, and so well worthy of all acceptation, that one would think it should be universally received and believed. But it is quite otherwise; few believed the prophets who spoke before of Christ; when he came himself none of the rulers nor of the Pharisees followed him, and but here and there one of the common people; and, when the apostles carried this report all the world over, some in every place believed, but comparatively very few. To this day, of the many that profess to believe this report, there are few that cordially embrace it and submit to the power of it. 2. Therefore people believe not the report of the gospel, because the arm of the Lord is not revealed to them; they do not discern, nor will be brought to acknowledge, that divine power which goes along with the word. The arm of the Lord is made bare (as was said, Isa_52:10) in the miracles that were wrought to confirm Christ's doctrine, in the wonderful success of it, and its energy upon the conscience; though it is a still voice, it is a strong one; but they do not perceive this, nor do they experience in themselves that working of the Spirit which makes the word effectual. They believe not the gospel because, by rebelling against the light they had, they had forfeited the grace of God, which therefore he justly denied them and withheld from them, and for want of that they believed not. 3. This is a thing we ought to be much affected with; it is to be wondered at, and greatly lamented, and ministers may go to God and complain of it to him, as the prophet here. What a pity is it that such rich grace should be received in vain, that precious souls should perish at the pool's side, because they will not step in and be healed!

5. JAMISON. “Isa_53:1-12. Man’s unbelief: Messiah’s vicarious sufferings, and final triumph for man. The speaker, according to Horsley, personates the repenting Jews in the latter ages of the world coming over to the faith of the Redeemer; the whole is their penitent confession. This view suits the context (Isa_52:7-9), which is not to be fully realized until Israel is restored. However, primarily, it is the abrupt exclamation of the prophet: “Who hath believed our report,” that of Isaiah and the other prophets, as to Messiah? The infidel’s objection from the unbelief of the Jews is anticipated and hereby answered: that unbelief and the cause of it (Messiah’s humiliation, whereas they looked for One coming to reign) were foreseen and foretold. report — literally, “the thing heard,” referring to which sense Paul says, “So, then, faith cometh by hearing” (Rom_10:16, Rom_10:17). arm — power (Isa_40:10); exercised in miracles and in saving men (Rom_1:16; 1Co_1:18). The prophet, as if present during Messiah’s ministry on earth, is deeply moved to see how few believed on Him (Isa_49:4; Mar_6:6; Mar_9:19; Act_1:15). Two reasons are given why all ought to have believed: (1) The “report” of the “ancient prophets.” (2) “The arm of Jehovah” exhibited in Messiah while on earth. In Horsley’s view, this will be the penitent confession of the Jews, “How few of our nation, in Messiah’s days, believed in Him!”

6. K&D, “But, says the second turn in Isa_53:1-3, the man of sorrows was despised among us, and the prophecy as to his future was not believed. We hear the first lamentation (the question is, From whose mouth does it come?) in Isa_53:1 : “Who hath believed our preaching; and the arm of Jehovah, over whom has it been revealed?” “I was formerly mistaken,” says Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 159, 160), “as to the connection between Isa_53:1 and Isa_52:1315, and thought that the Gentiles were the speakers in the former, simply because it was to them that the latter referred. But I see now that I was in error. It is affirmed of the heathen, that they have never heard before the things which they now see with their eyes. Consequently it cannot be they who exclaim, or in whose name the inquiry is made, Who hath believed our preaching?” Moreover, it cannot be they, both because the redemption itself and the exaltation of the Mediator of the redemption are made known to them from the midst of Israel as already accomplished facts, and also because according to Isa_52:15 (cf., Isa_49:7; Isa_42:4; Isa_51:5) they hear the things unheard of before, with amazement which passes into reverent awe, as the satisfaction of their own desires, in other words, with the glad obedience of faith. And we may also add, that the expression in Isa_53:8, “for the transgression of my people,” would be quite out of place in the mouths of Gentiles, and that, as a general rule, words attributed to Gentiles ought to be expressly introduced as theirs. Whenever we find a “we” introduced abruptly in the midst of a prophecy, it is always Israel that speaks, including the prophet himself (Isa_42:24; Isa_64:5; Isa_16:6; Isa_24:16, etc.). Hofmann therefore very properly rejects the view advocated by many, from Calvin down to Stier and Oehler, who suppose that it is the prophet himself who is speaking here in connection with the other heralds of salvation; “for,” as he says, “how does all the rest which is expressed in the 1st pers. plural tally with such a supposition?” If it is really Israel, which confesses in Isa_53:2. how blind it has been to the calling of the servant of Jehovah, which was formerly hidden in humiliation but is now manifested in glory; the mournful inquiry in Isa_53:1 must also proceed from the mouth of Israel. The references to this passage in Joh_12:37-38, and Rom_10:16, do not compel us to assign Isa_53:1 to the prophet and his comrades in office. It is Israel that speaks even in Isa_53:1. The nation, which acknowledges with penitence how shamefully it has mistaken its own Saviour, laments that it has put no faith in the tidings of the lofty and glorious calling of the servant of God. We need not assume, therefore, that there is any change of subject in Isa_53:2; and (what is still more decisive) it is necessary that we should not, if we would keep up any close connection between Isa_53:1 and Isa_52:15. The heathen receive with faith tidings of things which had never been heard of before; whereas Israel has to lament that it put no faith in the tidings which it had heard long, long before, not only with reference to the person and work of the servant of God, but with regard to his lowly origin and glorious end. ‫מוּעה‬ ָ ‫( ְש‬a noun after the form ‫שׁוּעה‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, ‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬, ְ a different form from that of ‫ְ ֻד ָה‬, which is derived from the adjective ‫ )גָ דּל‬signifies the hearsay ("κ ή), i.e., the tidings, more especially the prophetic announcement in Isa_28:9; and ‫שׁ ֻמ ָע ֵתנוּ‬, ְ according to the primary subjective force of the suffix, is equivalent to ‫)שר ָש ַמ ְענוּ‬ ֶ ‫מוּעה‬ ָ ‫( ְש‬cf., Jer_49:14), i.e., the hearsay which we have heard. There were some, indeed, who did not refuse to believe the tidings which Israel heard: "λλ+ʆ+ο-+πάντες+4πήκουσαν+τ8+ε9αγγελί< (Rom_10:16); the number of the believers was vanishingly small, when compared with the unbelieving mass of the nation. And it is the latter, or rather its remnant which had eventually come to its senses, that here inquires, Who hath believed our preaching, i.e., the preaching that was common among us? The substance of the preaching, which had not been believed, was the exaltation of the servant of God from a state of deep degradation. This is a work performed by the “arm of

Jehovah,” namely, His holy arm that has been made bare, and that now effects the salvation of His people, and of the nations generally, according to His own counsel (Isa_52:10; Isa_51:5). This arm works down from on high, exalted far above all created things; men have it above them, and it is made manifest to those who recognise it in what is passing around them. Who, asks Israel, has had any faith in the coming exaltation of the servant of God? who has recognised the omnipotence of Jehovah, which has set itself to effect his exaltation? All that follows is the confession of the Israel of the last times, to which this question is the introduction. We must not overlook the fact that this golden “passional” is also one of the greatest prophecies of the future conversion of the nation, which has rejected the servant of God, and allowed the Gentiles to be the first to recognise him. At last, though very late, it will feel remorse. And when this shall once take place, then and not till then will this chapter - which, to use an old epithet, will ever be carnificina Rabbinorum - receive its complete historical fulfilment.

7. CALVIN, “1.Who will believe our report? This division, or rather dismemberment, of the chapter, ought to be disregarded; for it ought to have begun with the thirteenth verse of the former chapter, and these words ought to be connected with what goes before. (50) Here the Prophet pauses, as it were, in the middle of his discourse; for, having formerly said that the name of Christ would be everywhere proclaimed, and would be revealed to unknown nations, and yet would have so mean an aspect that it might appear as if these things were fabulous, he breaks off his discourse, and exclaims that “ will believe those things.” At the same time, he describes his grief, that men are so unbelieving as to reject their salvation. Thus, it is a holy complaint made by one who wished that Christ should be known by all, and who, notwithstanding of this, sees that there are few who believe the Gospel, and therefore groans and cries out, “ hath believed our report?“ Let us therefore groan and complain along with the Prophet, and let us be distressed with grief when we see that our labor is unprofitable, and let us complain before God; for godly ministers must be deeply affected, if they wish to perform their work faithfully. Isaiah declares that there will be few that submit to the Gospel of Christ; for, when he exclaims, “ will believe the preaching?” he means that of those who hear the Gospel scarcely a hundredth person will be a believer. Nor does he merely speak of himself alone, but like one who represents all teachers. Although therefore God gives many ministers, few will hold by their doctrine; and what then will happen when there are no ministers? Do we wonder that the greatest blindness reigns there? If cultivated ground is unfruitful, what shall we look for from a soil that is uncultivated and barren? And yet it does not detract anything from the Gospel of Christ, that there are few disciples who receive it; nor does the small number of believers lessen its authority or obscure its infinite glory; but, on the contrary, the loftiness of the mystery is a reason why it scarcely obtains credit in the world. It is reckoned to be folly, because it exceeds all human capacities. To whom (literally, on whom) is the arm of Jehovah revealed? In this second clause he points out the reason why the number of believers will be so small. It is, because no man can come to God but by an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit. To suppose that by the word “” Christ is meant, is, in my opinion, a mistake. It assigns the cause why there are so few that believe; and that is, that they cannot attain it by the sagacity of their own understanding. This is a remarkable passage, and is quoted by John and Paul for that purpose. “ Jesus,” said John, “ performed many miracles in their presence, they believed not in him, that the saying of Isaiah the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,

“ who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Joh_12:37) And Paul says, “ they do not all believe the Gospel; for Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?“ (Rom_10:16) Both of them declare that there will be no reason to wonder, if that which was long ago foretold shall happen; and they do so for the purpose of removing offense which might have arisen from the revolt of that nation, which ought to have acknowledged Christ, but obstinately resisted him. Isaiah does not include merely the men of his own time, but all posterity to the end of the world; for, so long as the reign of Christ shall endure, this must be fulfilled; and therefore believers ought to be fortified by this passage against such a scandal. These words refute the ignorance of those who think that faith is in the power of every person, because preaching is common to all. Though it is sufficiently evident that all are called to salvation, yet the Prophet expressly states that the external voice is of no avail, if it be not accompanied by a special gift of the Spirit. And whence proceeds the difference, but from the secret election of God, the cause of which is hidden in himself?

(50) “ most modern writers detach the three preceding verses and prefix them to this chapter, Hitzig goes to the opposite extreme of saying that the writer here begins afresh, without any visible connection with the previous context. Ewald more reasonably makes this a direct continuation, but observes a change of tone, from that of joyous confidence to that of penitent confession, on the part of the believing Jews, in reference to their former incredulity.” Alexander.

8. MACLAREN, “THE ARM OF THE LORD In the second Isaiah there are numerous references to ‘the arm of the Lord.’ It is a natural symbol of the active energy of Jehovah, and is analogous to the other symbol of ‘the Face of Jehovah,’ which is also found in this book, in so far as it emphasises the notion of power in manifestation, though ‘the Face’ has a wider range and may be explained as equivalent to that part of the divine Nature which is turned to men. The latter symbol will then be substantially parallel with ‘the Name.’ But there are traces of a tendency to conceive of ‘the arm of the Lord’ as personified, for instance, where we read (Isa_63:12) that Jehovah ‘caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses.’ Moses was not the true leader, but was himself led and sustained by the divine Power, dimly conceived as a person, ever by his side to sustain and direct. There seems to be a similar imperfect consciousness of personification in the words of the text, especially when taken in their close connection with the immediately following prophecy of the suffering servant. It would be doing violence to the gradual development of Revelation, like tearing asunder the just-opening petals of a rose, to read into this question of the sad prophet full-blown Christian truth, but it would be missing a clear anticipation of that truth to fail to recognise the forecasting of it that is here. I. We have here a prophetic forecast that the arm of the Lord is a person. The strict monotheism of the Old Testament does not preclude some very remarkable phenomena in its modes of conception and speech as to the divine Nature. We hear of the ‘angel of His face,’ and again of ‘the angel in whom is His Name.’ We hear of ‘the angel’ to whom divine worship is addressed and who speaks, as we may say, in a divine dialect and does divine acts. We meet, too, with the personification of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, to which are ascribed

characteristics and are attributed acts scarcely distinguishable from divine, and eminently associated in the creative work. Our text points in the same direction as these representations. They all tend in the direction of preparing for the full Christian truth of the personal ‘Power of God.’ What was shown by glimpses ‘at sundry times and in divers manners,’ with many gaps in the showing and much left all unshown, is perfectly revealed in the Son. The New Testament, by its teaching as to ‘the Eternal Word,’ endorses, clears, and expands all these earlier dimmer adumbrations. That Word is the agent of the divine energy, and the conception of power as being exercised by the Word is even loftier than that of it as put forth by ‘the arm,’ by as much as intelligent and intelligible utterance is more spiritual and higher than force of muscle. The apostolic designation of Jesus as ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God’ blends the two ideas of these two symbols. The conception of Jesus Christ as the arm of the Lord, when united with that of the Eternal Word, points to a threefold sphere and manner of His operations, as the personal manifestation of the active power of God. In the beginning, the arm of the Lord stretched out the heavens as a tent to dwell in, and without Him ‘was not anything made that was made.’ In His Incarnation, He carried into execution all God’s purposes and fulfilled His whole will. From His throne He wields divine power, and rules the universe. ‘The help that is done on earth, He doeth it all Himself,’ and He works in the midst of humanity that redeeming work which none but He can effect. II. We have here a prophetic paradox that the mightiest revelation of the arm of the Lord is in weakness. The words of the text stand in closest connection with the great picture of the Suffering Servant which follows, and the pathetic figure portrayed there is the revealing of the arm of the Lord. The close bringing together of the ideas of majesty and power and of humiliation, suffering, and weakness, would be a paradox to the first hearers of the prophecy. Its solution lies in the historical manifestation of Jesus. Looking on Him, we see that the growing up of that root out of a dry ground was the revelation of the great power of God. In Jesus’ lowly humanity God’s power is made perfect in man’s weakness, in another and not less true sense than that in which the apostle spoke. There we see divine power in its noblest form, in its grandest operation, in its widest sweep, in its loftiest purpose. That humble man, lowly and poor, despised and rejected in life, hanging faint and pallid on the Roman cross, and dying in the dark, seems a strange manifestation of the ‘glory’ of God, but the Cross is indeed His throne, and sublime as are the other forms in which Omnipotence clothes itself, this is, to human eyes and hearts, the highest of them all. In Jesus the arm of the Lord is revealed in its grandest operation. Creation and the continual sustaining of a universe are great, but redemption is greater. It is infinitely more to say, ‘He giveth power to the faint,’ than to say, ‘For that He is strong in might, not one faileth,’ and to principalities and powers in heavenly places who have gazed on the grand operations of divine power for ages, new lessons of what it can effect are taught by the redemption of sinful men. The divine power that is enshrined in Jesus’ weakness is power in its widest sweep, for it is to every one that believeth, and in its loftiest purpose, for it is ‘unto salvation.’ III. We have here a prophetic lament that the power revealed to all is unseen by many. The text is a wail over darkened eyes, blind at noonday. The prophet’s radiant anticipations of the Servant’s exaltation, and of God’s holy arm being made bare in the eyes of all nations, are clouded over by the thought of the incredulity of the multitude to ‘our report.’ Jehovah had indeed ‘made bare His arm,’ as a warrior throws back his loose robe, when he would strike. But what was the use of that, if dull eyes would not look? The ‘report’ had been loudly proclaimed, but what was the use of that, if ears were obstinately stopped? Alas, alas! nothing that God can do secures that men shall see what He shows, or listen to what He speaks. The mystery of

mysteries is that men can, the tragedy of tragedies is that they will, make any possible revelation of none effect, so far as they are concerned. The Arm is revealed, but only by those who have ‘believed our report’ does the prophet deem it to be actually beheld. Faith is the individual condition on which the perfected revelation becomes a revelation to me. The ‘salvation of our God’ is shown in splendour to ‘all the ends of the earth,’ but only they who exercise faith in Jesus, who is the power of God, will see that farshining light. If we are not of those who ‘believe the report,’ we shall, notwithstanding that ‘He hath made bare His holy arm,’ be of those who grope at noonday as in the dark.

9. BI, “The Messiah referred to in Isa_53:1-12 By some it has been supposed, in ancient times and in modern, that the prophet was referring to the sufferings of the nation of Israel—either of Israel as a whole or of the righteous section of the nation—and to the benefits that would accrue from those sufferings to the surrounding peoples, some of whom were contemptuous of Israel, all of whom may be described as ignorant of God. But to defend that opinion it is necessary to paraphrase and interpret some of the statements in a way that no sound rules of exposition will allow. Even Jewish historians are wont to represent the sufferings of their people as the consequence of sin, whereas these verses speak repeatedly of sufferings that are vicarious. St. Paul says in one place that the fall of the Jews “is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles;” but he is so far from meaning that the Jews suffered in the stead of the Gentiles, that he proceeds at once to argue by implication: If the world has been blessed notwithstanding the unfaithfulness of the Jew, how much more would it have been blessed if Israel had been true? It is quite possible that the great figure of the Servant of Jehovah, standing in the front of all these verses, was designed to have more than a single interpretation, to be reverently approached from many sides, to be full of appeals to the patriotism and to the piety of the Israelite; but at the same time it is no mere abstract conception, but the figure of a living and separated Person, “more perfect than human believer ever was, uniting in himself more richly than any other messenger, of God everything that was necessary for the salvation of man, and finally accomplishing what no mere prophet” ever attempted. And some of the authorities of the synagogue even might be quoted in favour of the almost universal Christian opinion, that the Man of Sorrows of this chapter despised, and yet triumphant, is no other than the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of the world, who over-trod the lowest levels of human pain and misery, and who hereafter will sit enthroned, on His head many crowns, and in His heart the satisfaction of assured and unlimited victory. (R.W. Moss, D.D.)

The Jewish nation a vicarious sufferer Isa_53:1-12 has been supposed by many to refer to the Jewish nation as a whole, and not to Christ or any other individual. And, in truth, it is in many ways singularly applicable to Israel as a nation. As a nation Israel was “despised and rejected,” and “bore the sins of many.” This people was the chief medium through which the Eternal was made manifest on earth. Hence came the peculiarities and deficiencies of the Hebrew nature. The Jews were haunted by the Infinite and Eternal; and therefore they knew not the free and careless joyousness of Greece. The mountains are scarred and rent by storms and tempests almost unknown in the valleys. The deepest religion necessarily involves prolonged suffering. The near presence of the Infinite pierces and wounds the soul. To Greeks or Romans Israel was a sort of Moses, veiling even while revealing the terrific lineaments of Jehovah. The face of Israel did indeed shine with an

unearthly glory after communing with God on the mountain; but it was a glory utterly uncongenial to the gaiety of joyous Athens. Most truly might Greeks and Romans say of the devout Jew, “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Yet was Israel a mighty benefactor to the human race. “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Salvation came by the Jews. They had more genuine moral inspiration than any others of the sons of men. To them alone was clearly disclosed the true Jacob’s ladder connecting earth with heaven. To the Greeks the Infinite was a mere notion, a thing for the intellect to play with, or a kind of irreducible surd left after the keenest philosophical analysis. To the Hebrews, on the other hand, the Infinite was an appalling and soul-abasing reality, an ever-menacing guide, as the fiery flaming sword of the cherubims “which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” “It pleased the Lord to bruise” Israel for the sake of the whole world. By being “numbered with the transgressors,” Israel found out the real righteousness. (A. Crawford, M.A.)

The Jewish nation was a type of Christ The Jewish nation was a type of Christ, and of all natures at once spiritual and sympathetic throughout the ages. All real prophets in every age have in them much of the true Hebrew nature, with its depths and its limitations. (A. Crawford, M.A.)

The servant and Israel “Who believed what we heard, and to whom did the arm of the Lord reveal itself?” Who believed the revelation given to us in regard to the Servant, and who perceived the operation of the Lord in His history! The speakers are Israel now believing, and confessing their former unbelief. (A. B. Davidson, D.D.)

Christ in Isaiah As an artisan, laying a mosaic of complicated pattern and diverse colours, has before him a working drawing, and carefully fits the minute pieces of precious stone and enamel according to it, till the perfection of the design is revealed to all, so do the evangelists and apostles, with the working-drawing of Old Testament prophecy, and Old Testament types and shadows in the tabernacle services and ceremonies, in their hands, fit together the details of Christ’s life on earth, His atoning death and His resurrection, and say, “Behold, this can be none other than the long looked-for Messiah.” The central knop, or flower pattern, of the mosaic, from which all other details of the design radiated, was the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. (F. Sessions.)

The suffering Saviour I. We are led to THE ANTICIPATED LOWLINESS OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUS SERVANT, the Messiah. He would be low in the esteem of men, even of those He comes to serve. The Jews and Messianic prophecy From the Jews wresting this text, observe— 1. That there is an evil disposition in men to turn off upon others that which nearly concerns themselves.

2. That it is no new thing in persons to vouch that for themselves which makes most against them. Thus the Jews do this chapter against the Gentiles. 3. When God, for the wickedness of a people, hardeneth their hearts, they are apt to mistake in that which is most plain. 4. From the prophet’s great admiration, observe, that when we can do no good upon a people, the most effectual way is to complain of it to God. 5. Those that profess the name of God may be much prejudiced against the entertainment of those truths and counsels that He makes known to them for their good. 6. It is a wonder they should not believe so plain a discovery of Christ, though by the just judgment of God they did not. 7. The first believing of Christ is a believing the report of Him; but afterwards there are experiences to confirm our belief (1Pe_2:3; Joh_4:42). (T. Manton, D.D.)

Christ preached, but rejected I. JESUS CHRIST MAY BE CLEARLY REPRESENTED TO A PEOPLE, AND YET BUT FEW WON TO BELIEVE IN HIM. II. THE GOSPEL IS THE ARM AND POWER OF GOD. III. SO FEW BELIEVE, BECAUSE GOD’S ARM IS NOT REVEALED TO THEM; the power of the Word is not manifested by the Spirit. (T. Manton, D. D. )

Jewish prejudice against Christ At the time of Christ’s being in the flesh there were divers prejudices against Him in the Jews. 1. An erroneous opinion of the Messiah. 2. A fond reverence of Moses and the prophets, as if it were derogatory to them to close with Christ (Joh_9:29). 3. Offence at His outward meanness (that is the scope of this chapter), and the persecution He met with. (T. Manton, D. D.)

Gentile prejudice against Christ 1. Pride in the understanding (1Co_1:23). 2. The meanness of the reporters—poor fishermen. 3. The hard conditions upon which they were to entertain Christ. (T. Manton, D. D.)

Christ rejected in our time The hindrances to believing in Him are these: 1. Ignorance. Men hear of Christ, but are not acquainted with Him. 2. An easy slightness; men do not labour after faith.

3. A careless security. They think themselves well enough without Him. 4. A light esteem of Christ. As we do not see our own needs, so not His worth. 5. A presumptuous conceit that we have entertained Christ already. Many think every slight wish, every trivial hope, will serve the turn. 6. Hardness of heart. 7. Self-confidence. 8. Carnal fears. These hinder the soul from closing with that, mercy that is reported to be in Christ. They are of divers sorts. (1) Fear of God’s anger, as if He were so displeased with us that certainly He did not intend Christ for us. (2) Fear of being too bold with the promises. (3) Fear of the sin of presumption. 9. Carnal reasonings from our sins. 10. Carnal apprehensions of Christ. (T. Manton, D. D.)

The credibility and importance of the Gospel report I. WE WILL CONTEMPLATE THIS REPORT, AND INQUIRE WHETHER IT IS NOT WORTHY OF OUR ATTENTION AND BELIEF. 1. The report which we hear, is a most instructive report. It brings us information of many things which were before unknown, and which, without this information, never could have been known to the sons of men. “That which had not been told us, we see.” The Gospel for this reason is called a message, good tidings, and tidings of great joy. The leading truths of natural religion are agreeable to the dictates of reason; and perhaps might be, in some measure, discovered without revelation. At least they were known among those who had never enjoyed a written revelation, though, indeed, we cannot say how far these might be indebted to traditional information. But certainly those truths, which immediately relate to the recovery and salvation of sinners, human reason could never investigate. 2. The Gospel is a report from heaven. It was, in some degree, made known to the patriarchs, and afterwards more fully to the prophets But “God has in these last days, spoken to us by His Son.” 3. the Gospel is a credible report. Many reports come to us without evidence: we only hear them, but know not what is their foundation, or whether they have any. And yet even these reports pass not wholly unregarded. But, if any important intelligence is brought to us which is both rational in itself, and at the same time supported by a competent number of reputable witnesses, we may much rather judge it worthy of our attention and belief. With this evidence the Gospel comes. It is credible in its own nature. The doctrines of the Gospel, though beyond the discovery and above the comprehension of reason, are in no instance contrary to its dictates. They are all adapted to promote real virtue and righteousness. Besides this internal evidence, God has been pleased to give it the sanction of His own testimony. Errors have sometimes been introduced and propagated by the artful reasoning of interested men. But Christianity rests not on the basis of human reasoning, or a subtle intricate train of argumentation: it stands on the ground of plain facts, of which every man is able to judge. The life, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are the facts

which support it. If these did really take place, the Gospel is true. Whether they did or not, men of common abilities were as competent to judge, as men of the profoundest learning. We, who live in the present age, have not, in every respect, the same evidence of the truth of the Gospel as they had, who were eye-witnesses of those facts. But we have their testimony, in the most authentic manner, conveyed to us. Some advantages we have, which they had not. We have the examination of preceding ages. We see Christianity still supporting itself against all the opposition of the world. We see the unwearied attempts of its enemies to subvert it, rendered fruitless and vain. We see many of the predictions contained in these records, already verified; and others, to all appearance, hastening on towards an accomplishment. 4. It is an interesting report. From the Gospel we learn that the human race have, by transgression, fallen under the Divine displeasure. This report corresponds with our own experience and observation. The Gospel brings us a joyful message. 5. This is a public report. It is what we have all heard, and heard often. II. WE WILL CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT. “Who hath believed our report?” (J. Lathrop, D..D.)

Do the prophets believe? “Who hath believed our report?” This inquiry has been read in various ways. Each of the ways has had its own accent and good lesson. 1. For example, the figure might be that of the prophets gathered together in conference and bemoaning in each other’s hearing that their sermons or prophecies had come to nothing. We have preached all this while, and nobody has believed; why preach any more? If this thing were of God it would result in great harvests: it results in barrenness, and we are disappointed prophets. That is one way. Many excellent remarks have been made under that construction of the inquiry. 2. But that is not the meaning of the prophecy. The Revised Version helps us to see it more clearly, by reading the word thus:—“Who hath believed that which we have heard?” The idea is that the prophets are not rebuking other people; the tremendous idea is that the prophets are interrogating themselves and saying, in effect at least, Have we believed our own prophecy? is there a believer in all the Church? is not the Church a nest of unbelievers? That puts a very different face upon the interrogation. We shall now come to great Gospels; when the prophets flagellate themselves we shall have some good preaching. We might put the inquiry, if not literally, yet spiritually and experimentally, thus:—Which of us, even the prophets, have believed? We have said the right thing; people might listen with entranced attention to such eloquence as ours: but is it red with the blood of trust, has it gone forth from us taking our souls with it? If not, we are as the voice of the charmer; men are saying of each of us, He hath a pleasant voice, what he says is said most tunefully, but the man himself is not behind it and in it and above it: it is a recitation, not a prophecy. 3. Who can find fault with the prophets? Not one of us, least of all myself. They had some hard things to, believe; men do not willingly believe in wildernesses and barren rocks, and declarations that have in them no poetry and on them no lustre from heaven, hard and perilous sayings. Who can believe this, that when the Anointed of the Lord shall come, the Chosen One, He shall be “as a root out of a dry ground: He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him?” It is incredible; if He is God’s own Son He will be more beautiful than the dawn of summer. But God will not flatter His servants; He says to each of them, even the loftiest in stature of soul, Go out and

proclaim a Cross. It is always so with this Christ; He is all Cross at the first: but what a summer there is hidden in the clouds! and it will come as it were suddenly. The prophets worked their own way under the guidance of the Holy Spirit out of this darkness. Having: dwelt more largely upon the tragical aspect of the life of this great One, they say towards the close, “He shall see His seed.” That is a new tone; “He shall prolong his days,” that is a new tone; “and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.” Why, they have turned the corner; they are getting up into the sunshine, they are unfurling the flag on the mountaintop. “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied: His blood shall buy the universe. This is the other end; this the other aspect of the Gospel. You will never profitably read the Scriptures until you take the darkness with the light. 4. What is the application of this? Why are you wondering that other people do not believe? The voice says, Friend! didst thou believe thine own sermon? Was it alive with thine heart? (J. Parker, D.D.)

A heavy complaint and lamentation I. TO WHOM IT WAS MADE. We find from parallel Scriptures that it is made to the Lord Himself (Joh_12:38; Rom_10:16). II. WHOM IT RESPECTS. It respects the hearers of the Gospel in the prophet’s time, and in after times too. III. THE MAKER OF THIS HEAVY LAMENTATION. 1. The unsucessfulness of the Gospel, and prevailing unbelief among them that heard it. Consider— (1) What the Gospel is. A “report.” The word signifies a “hearing,” a thing to be heard and received by faith, as a voice is received and heard by the ear. Hence that expression, “the hearing of faith” (Gal_3:2). (2) What faith is. It is a giving credit to the Gospel, and a trusting our souls to it, as on a word that cannot fail. (3) How rare that faith is. “Who hath believed!” The report is brought to multitudes; but where is the man that really trusts it, as news from heaven, that may be relied on? 2. The great withdrawing of the power of God from ordinances. “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” This implies (1) That there is a necessity of the mighty power of God being exerted on a man, to cause him to believe (Joh_6:44). (2) That few, very few, felt this power. (3) That hence so few believed. (T. Boston, M.A.)

The little success of the Gospel matter of lamentation I. WHAT IS THAT SUCCESS WHICH THE GOSPEL SOMETIMES HATH? It is successful— 1. When sinners are thereby brought to faith in Christ (Rom_1:17). 2. When they are thereby brought to holiness of life (2Co_3:18).

II. WHAT IS THAT DIVINE POWER WHICH SOMETIMES COMES ALONG WITH GOSPELORDINANCES? 1. A heart and life discovering power (1Co_14:24-25). The word comes, and the Lord’s arm comes with it, and opens the volume of a man’s heart and the life, and it is as if the preacher were reading the secret history of a man’s thoughts and actions (Heb_4:12). 2. A sharp, convincing power, whereby the sinner does not only see his sin, but sees the ill and danger of it, and is touched to the heart with it (Act_24:25). 3. A drawing and converting power (Joh_12:32; Psa_19:7). 4. A quickening power (Psa_119:50). 5. A clearing power, resolving doubts, removing mistakes and darkness in certain particulars, whereby one is retarded in their spiritual course Psa_19:7-8). 6. A comforting power (Psa_119:49-50). 7. A strengthening power. The Spirit, with the Word blowing on the dry bones, makes them stand on their feet like s great army. 8. A soul-elevating and heart-ravishing power (Luk_24:32). III. THE REASONS OF THE DOCTRINE. I. It must be a matter of lamentation to the godly in general. For— (1) The honour of Christ is thereby overclouded. (2) The glory of the glorious Gospel is thereby veiled. (3) Souls are thereby lost, while salvation is come to their door. (4) The godly themselves suffer loss, the thronger Christ’s family is, the better thriven are the children; and contrariwise. If there were more converting, there would be more confirming work too. 2. Particularly to godly ministers. (1) Thereby their care and pains are much lost, and in vain. (2) Their work is rendered more difficult and wearisome. (3) The seals of their ministry are but small. (T. Boston, M. A.)

Evidences of non-success 1. The slighting of Gospel ordinances that so much prevails. 2. Little reformation of life under the dispensation of the Gospel. 3. Much formality in attendance on ordinances. 4. Little of the work of conversion or soul-exercise. (T. Boston, M. A.)

The Gospel-report I. CONSIDER THE GOSPEL AS IT IS A REPORT. View it— 1. In the nature of a report in general.

(1) There is the subject of a report, or the thing that is reported, some design, action, or event, true or false. The subject of the Gospel-report is, a love-design in God for the salvation of sinners of mankind (2Ti_1:9-10). It is the report of an act of grace and kindness in God, in favours of them, whereby He has given them His Son for a Saviour (Joh_3:16; Isa_9:6), and eternal life in Him (1Jn_5:11). The report of the event of Christ’s dying for sinners. (2) There is the place whence the report originally comes. And the place here is heaven. Hence the Gospel is called “heavenly things” (Joh_3:12), revealed from the bosom of the Father. (3) The matter of a report is something unseen to them to whom the report is made. And so is the matter of the Gospel-report. It is an unseen God Joh_1:18); an unseen Saviour (1Pe_1:8); and unseen things 2Co_4:18), that are preached unto you by the Gospel. So the Gospel is an object of faith, not of sight (Heb_11:1). We receive it by hearing, not by seeing (Isa_55:3). (4) There is a reporter or reporters. And in this case the report is made by many. The first-hand reporter is an eye-witness, Jesus Christ. Christ Himself was the raiser of the report of the Gospel (Heb_2:3). And who else could have been so? (Joh_1:18). What He reported He saw, and gives us His testimony of the truth of it on His eyesight (Joh_3:11). Hence He is proposed to us as “the faithful and true Witness” Rev_3:14), who was from eternity privy to the whole design revealed to us in the Gospel. The prophets and apostles, and ministers of the Gospel. They are the second-hand reporters. (5) There is a manifestation of the thing by the report, to the parties to whom the report is made. So is the grace of God to poor sinners manifested to them by the Gospel (2Ti_1:9-10). 2. In the nature of a report to be trusted to, for some valuable end. And so it is— (1) A true and faithful report, that one may safely trust (1Ti_1:15). (2) An infallible report. A report may be true where there is no infallibility: but the report of the Gospel is an infallible truth (Act_1:3), for it is “the Word of God that cannot lie” (1Th_2:13). And the Spirit of the Lord demonstrates it to believers, as Divine truth (1Co_2:4). (3) A good and comfortable report. (4) A weighty report, even of the greatest weight, as concerning man’s greatest possible interest (Isa_61:6). II. CONSIDER FAITH AS IT IS A TRUSTING TO THIS REPORT. Faith is— 1. A trusting of the Gospel-report as true. (1) In the general, with respect to the multitude whom it concerns. “It is a faithful saying, Christ came to save sinners.” (2) In particular, with respect to oneself. Faith believes that there is a fulness in Christ for poor sinners, and for oneself in particular. Hence it appears—That there is an assurance in the nature of faith, whereby the believing person is sure of the truth of the doctrine of the Gospel, and that with respect to himself particularly (1Th_1:5). That there is a necessity of an inward illumination by the Spirit, in order to the faith of the Gospel (1Co_2:10-14). 2. A trusting to the Gospel-report as good. It implies—

(1) Not only a willingness, but a sincere desire to be delivered from sin, as well as from wrath. (2) A renouncing of all other confidence for his salvation. (3) A hearty approbation of the way of salvation manifested in the report of the Gospel (Mat_11:6). (4) A betaking one’s self entirely to that way of salvation, by trusting to it wholly for our own salvation. (5) A confidence or trust, that He will save us from sin and wrath, according to His promise (Act_15:11). III. CONSIDER THE REPORT OF THE GOSPEL, AND THE TRUSTING TO IT, CONJUNCTLY. The Gospel is a report from heaven— 1. Of salvation for poor sinners, from sin (Mat_1:21), and from the wrath of God (Joh_3:16), freely made over to you in the Word of promise. Faith trusts it as a true report, believing that God has said it; and trusts to it as good, laying our own salvation upon it. 2. Of a crucified Christ made over to sinners, as the device of Heaven for their salvation. The soul concludes, the Saviour is mine; and leans on Him for all the purchase of His death, for life and salvation to itself in particular 1Co_2:2). 3. Of a righteousness wherein we guilty ones may stand before a holy God Rom_1:17). And by faith one believes there is such a righteousness, that it is sufficient to cover him, and that it is held out to him to be trusted on for righteousness; and so the believer trusts it as his righteousness in the sight of God, disclaiming all other, and betaking himself to it alone Gal_2:16). 4. Of a pardon under the great seal of Heaven, in Christ, to all who will take it in Him (Act_13:38-39). The soul by faith believes this to be true, and applies it to itself, saying, This pardon is for me. 5. Of a Physician that cures infallibly all the diseases of the soul. The soul believes it, and applies it to its own case. 6. Of a feast for hungry souls, to which all are bid welcome, Christ Himself being the Maker and matter of it too. The soul weary of the husks of created things, and believing this report, accordingly falls a-feeding on Christ. 7. Of a victory won by Jesus Christ over sin, Satan, and death, and the world. The soul trusts to it for its victory over all these, as already foiled enemies (1Jn_5:4). 8. Of a peace purchased by the blood of Christ for poor sinners, and offered to them. Faith believes it; and the soul comes before God as a reconciled Father in Christ, brings in its supplications for supply before the throne. (T. Boston, M. A.)

The rarity of believing the Gospel-report I. CONFIRM THIS POINT. 1. Take a view of the Church in all ages, and the entertainment the Gospel has met with among them to whom it came. It has been a despised and disbelieved Gospel. (1) Under the patriarchal dispensation, from Adam to Moses. By Adam and Eve it was believed, and Adam preached it; but Cain slew Abel and headed an apostasy, etc.

(2) Under the Mosaic dispensation, they had the Gospel, though veiled with types and figures. But the body of the generation that came out of Egypt, believed not, but fell in the wilderness (Heb_4:2). (3) Under the Christian dispensation (Joh_12:37-38; Rom_10:16). At the Reformation the Gospel had remarkable success; yet believers were but few comparatively; and there have been but few all along since that time. 2. Take a view of the Church, setting aside those whom the Scripture determines to be unbelievers; and we will soon see that but few do remain. Set aside— (1) The grossly ignorant of Christ, and of the truths of the Gospel. How can they believe the Gospel, that know not what it is? (2) The profane, who are Christians in name, because they live in a Christian country; but have not a shape of Christianity about them. Surely these do not believe the Gospel (Tit_1:16). (3) The carnal and worldly, who make the world their chief good, mainly seeking that, and favouring it only. These undoubtedly are unbelievers Php_3:19-20). (4) Mere moralists, all whose religion is confined to some pieces of the second table (Mat_5:20). (5) Gross hypocrites. That Gospel that cleanses not a man’s hands from unjust dealing, his mouth from lying, swearing and filthy speaking, is certainly not believed. (6) Close hypocrites, whose outward conversation is blameless in the eye of the world, but in the meantime are inwardly strangers to God and Christ Rev_3:1). (7) All unregenerate persons; for they are certainly unbelievers, as believers are regenerate. Set aside then all these, few remain who trust to the Gospel report. II. THE REASONS WHY SO FEW BELIEVE THE REPORT OF THE GOSPEL. 1. There is a natural impotency in all (Joh_6:44). Believing the report of the Gospel is beyond the power of nature, Yea, everything in nature is against it, till the Spirit of the Lord overcome them into belief of the report of the Gospel. 2. The predominant power of lusts, to which the Gospel is an enemy. There our Lord lodges it (Joh_3:19). 3. There is a judicial blindness on many (2Co_4:3-4). (T. Boston, M. A.)

Divine power necessary for believing the Gospel report There is no true believing or trusting to the report of the Gospel, but what is the effect of the working of a Divine power on the soul for that end. I. EVINCE THE TRUTH OF THE DOCTRINE. Consider for it— 1. Express Scripture testimony (Joh_6:44). 2. The state that by nature we are in, “dead in sin” (Eph_2:1). Faith is the first vital act of the soul, quickened by the Spirit of life from Jesus Christ. 3. There can be no faith without knowledge: and the knowledge of spiritual things man is by nature incapable of (1Co_2:14).

4. Man is naturally under the power of Satan, a captive of the devil, who with his utmost efforts will hinder the work of faith (2Co_4:3-4). Such a case the Gospel finds men in; and it is the design of the Gospel to bring them out of it (Act_26:17-18). 5. Man’s trust is by nature firmly preoccupied by those things which the Gospel calls them to renounce. He is wedded to other confidences naturally, which therefore he will hold by, till a power above nature carry him off from them—self-confidence, creature-confidence, lawconfidence. 6. Man has a strong bias and bent against believing or trusting to the Gospel (Joh_5:40; Rom_10:3). 7. It is the product of the Holy Spirit, wherever it is. II. WHAT IS THAT WORKING OF DIVINE POWER WHEREBY THE SOUL IS BROUGHT TO TRUST TO THE GOSPEL REPORT? There is a twofold work of Divine power on the soul for that end. 1. A mediate work, which is preparatory to it; whereof the Spirit is the author, and the instrument is the law. (1) An awakening work. (2) A humbling work, whereby the proud sinner is brought low to the dust: not only finding a need of salvation, but an absolute need of Christ for salvation. So he is broken off from self-confidence, creature-confidence, law-confidence. 2. An immediate work, whereby faith is produced in the soul; whereof the Spirit is the author, and the Gospel the instrument. It is— (1) A quickening work, whereby the dead soul is called again to spiritual Eph_2:1). (2) An illuminating work. There is a knowledge in faith. (T. Boston, M. A.)

The Monarch in disguise There are four distinctive features predicted— 1. The lowliness, obscurity and sorrow of the coming Servant of God. 2. The putting forth of “the arm of the Lord” in Him and in His work. 3. The setting forth of this in a message or “report.” 4. The concealing, as it were, of the “arm of the Lord,” owing to the lowly appearance of this Servant. (C. Clemance, D.D.)

Preaching and hearing I. THE GREAT SUBJECT OF PREACHING, and the preacher’s great errand, is to report concerning Jesus Christ—to bring good tidings concerning Him. II. THE GREAT DUTY OF HEARERS is, to believe this report and, by virtue of it, to be brought to rest on Jesus Christ. III. THE GREAT, THOUGH THE ORDINARY, SIN OF THE GENERALITY OF THE HEARERS OF THE GOSPEL is unbelief.

IV. THE GREAT COMPLAINT, WEIGHT AND GRIEF OF AN HONEST MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL is this—that his message is not taken off his hand; that Christ is not received, believed in and rested on. (J. Durham.)

The offer of Christ in the Gospel I. The offering of Christ in the Gospel is WARRANT enough to believe in Him. Otherwise there had been no just ground of expostulation and complaint for not believing. The complaint is for the neglect of the duty they were called to. II. They to whom Christ is offered in the Gospel are CALLED to believe. It is their duty to do it. III. Saving faith is THE WAY AND MEANS by which those who have Christ offered to them in the Gospel come to get a right to Him, and to obtain the benefits that are reported of to be had from Him. (J. Durham.)

The necessity of faith 1. Look to all the promises, whether of pardon of sin, peace with God, joy in the Holy Ghost, holiness and conformity to God—there is no access to these, or to any of them, but by faith. 2. Look to the performance of any duty, or mortification of any lust or idol, and faith is necessary to that. 3. Whenever any duty is done, there is no acceptation of it without faith Heb_4:2; Heb_11:6). (J. Durham.)

A faithful minister’s sorrow It is most sad to a tender minister to see unbelief and unfruitfulness among the people he hath preached the Gospel to. There is a fourfold reason of this— 1. Respect to Christ Jesus his Master, in whose stead he comes to woo souls to Christ. 2. The respect he hath to people’s souls. 3. The respect he hath to the duty in hand. 4. Concern for his own joy and comfort (Php_2:16). (J. Durham.)

The prevalence of unbelief I. THE CHARACTER HERE GIVEN OF THE GOSPEL. A “report.” Let us see— 1. In what respects it resembles a report. A report is the statement of things or facts done or occurring at some distance of time or place; of things which we ourselves have not seen, but of which an account has been brought to us by others, and to which our belief is demanded in proportion to the degree of credibility which attaches to those who bring us the account. Such is the Gospel. 2. In what respects this report differs from all other reports. This difference may be traced in the importance of the truths which it professes to communicate, no less than in the evidence by which it is confirmed.

II. THE QUESTION WHICH THE PROPHET ASKS IN REFERENCE TO IT, “Who hath believed our report?” This question is evidently the language of complaint, of surprise, and of grief. And has there not been always occasion for such language as this? (E. Cooper.)

Ministerial solicitude Every minister of Jesus Christ, imbued with the spirit of his office, is anxious— (1) To make a faithful report; (2) Then, in many living witnesses, to behold the illustration of an apostle’s assertion, “Faith cometh by hearing, etc. I. THE REPORT WHICH THE MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL MAKE. The “report” of Isaiah is the “saying” of Paul (1Ti_1:15). 1. It demands and deserves your attention, for we bring it from heaven. 2. It is a report of universal interest, for it is to be made to all the world. 3. Our report is of the very highest importance, for it refers to the state of the soul. 4. It is a report of the strictest veracity, being confirmed by many credible witnesses. II. The ANXIETY WHICH THE MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL FEEL. 1. This report is very generally neglected. 2. This neglect is the result of unbelief. 3. This neglect is, to those who make it, a subject of devout solicitude and of deep regret. 4. When this report is believed, it operates with Divine efficiency. What think you of our report? (Essex Congregational Remembrancer.)

And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?— The arm of the Lord revealed I. WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE ARM OF THE LORD.” II. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REVEALING OF THE ARM OF THE LORD. III. THE SCOPE AND DEPENDENCE OF THESE WORDS ON THE FORMER. (J. Durham.)

The arm of the Lord “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” It has been made bare these many centuries, and how few have seen it, or recognized it, or called it by its proper name! We have had continuity, and succession, and evolution, and development, and progress, and laws of nature; but not “the arm of the Lord. (J. Parker, D.D.)

The might of the saving arm, and how to obtain it

(with Joh_11:40):—A lawyer whom I know took me to see the fire-proof strong-room inwhich he keeps valuable deeds and securities. It is excavated under the street, and a passage leads far into the interior, lined on either side with receptacles for the precious documents. On entering, he took up what appeared to be a candle, with a cord attached to it; the other end he deftly fastened to a switch at the entrance, by means of which the electricity which was waiting there poured up the wire hidden in the cord, glowed at the wick of the china candle, and we were able to pass to the end of the passage, uncoiling cord and wire as we went. That unlighted candle resembles the Christian worker apart from the power of the Holy Ghost. Faith may be compared to the switch by means of which the saving might of God pours into our life and ministry. It cannot be too strongly insisted on, that our faith is the absolute condition and measure of the exertion of God’s saving might. No faith, no blessing; little faith, little blessing; great faith, great blessing. The saving might of God’s glorious arm may be waiting close against us; but it is inoperative unless we are united to it by faith. The negative and positive sides of this great and important truth are presented in the texts before us: one of which complains that the arm of God is not revealed, because men have not believed the inspired report; the other affirms from the lips of the Master, that those who believe shall see the glory of God. (F. B. Meyer, B.A.)

The arm of God and human faith (with Joh_11:40):— I. THE ARM OF GOD. This expression is often used in the older Scriptures, and everywhere signifies the active, saving energy of the Most High. We first meet with it in His own address to Moses: “I will redeem them with a stretched-out arm.” Then, in the triumphant shout that broke from two million glad voices beside the Red Sea—and frequently in the book of Deuteronomy— we read of the stretched-out arm of Jehovah. It is a favourite phrase with the poets and prophets of Israel—the arm that redeems; the holy arm; the glorious arm; the bared arm of God. The conception is that, owing to the unbelief of Israel, it lies inoperative, hidden under the heavy folds of Oriental drapery; whereas it might be revealed, raising itself aloft in vigorous and effective effort. All that concerns us now is the relation between faith and the forth-putting of God’s saving might. II. THE LIFE OF THE SON OF MAN. AS this chapter suggests, it seemed, from many points of view, a failure. The arm of the Lord was in Him, though hidden from all save the handful who believed. III. A SPECIMEN CASE. Even though our Lord went to Bethany with the assurance that the arm of the Lord would certainly be made bare, yet He must of necessity have the co-operation and sympathy of some one’s faith. 1. Such faith He discovered in Martha. Her admissions showed that faith was already within her soul, as a grain of mustard-seed, awaiting the summertide of God’s presence, the education of His grace. There are many earnest Christians whose energies are taxed to the uttermost by their ministry to others. They have no time to sit quietly at the feet of Christ, or mature great schemes of loving sympathy with His plans, as Mary did when she prepared her anointing-oil for her Lord s burial. And yet they are capable of a great faith. Christ will one day discover, reveal and educate that faith to great exploits. 2. He put a promise before her—“Thy brother shall rise again.” Faith feeds on promises. 3. He showed that its fulfilment might be expected and now. Jesus said, “I AM the Resurrection and the Life.” Here and now is the power which, on that day of which you speak, shall awaken the dead; do but believe, and you shall see that resurrection anticipated. Ponder the force of this I AM. It is the present tense of the Eternal.

4. He aroused her expectancy. For what other reason did He ask that the stone might be rolled away? She believed, and she beheld the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The one aim for each of us should be to bring Christ and the dead Lazarus together. Let us ask Christ, our Saviour, to work such faith in us; to develop it by every method of education and discipline; to mature it by his nurturing Spirit, until the arm of God is revealed in us and through us, and the glory of God is manifested before the gaze of men. At the same time, it is not well to concentrate our thought too much on faith, lest we hinder its growth. Look away from faith to the Object of faith, and faith will spring of itself. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

1.BARNES, “For he shall grow up before him - In this verse, the prophet describes the humble appearance of the Messiah, and the fact that there was nothing in his personal aspect that corresponded to the expectations that bad been formed of him; nothing that should lead them to desire him as their expected deliverer, but everything that could induce them to reject him. He would be of so humble an origin, and with so little that was magnificent in his external appear ance, that the nation would despise him. The word rendered ‘he shall grow up’ (‫ ויעל‬vaya‛ al, from ‫‛ עלה‬alah), means properly, “to go up, to ascend.” Here it evidently applies to the Redeemer as growing up in the manner of a shoot or sucker that springs out of the earth. It means that he would start, as it were, from a decayed stock or stump, as a shoot springs up from a root that is apparently dead. It does not refer to his manner of life before his entrance on the public work of the ministry; not to the mode and style of his education; but to his starting as it were out of a dry and sterile soil where any growth could not be expected, or from a stump or stock that was apparently dead (see the notes at Isa_11:1). The phrase ‘before him’ (‫ לפניו‬lepana

yv), refers to Yahweh. He would be seen and observed by him, although unknown to the world. The eyes of people would not regard him as the Messiah while he was growing up, but Yahweh would, and his eye would be continually upon him.

As a tender plant - The word used here (‫ יונק‬yoneq, from ‫ ינק‬yanaq, to suck, Job_3:12; Son_8:1; Joe_2:16), may be applied either to a suckling, a sucking child Deu_32:25; Psa_8:3, or to a sucker, a sprout, a shoot of a tree Job_8:16; Job_14:7; Job_15:30; Eze_17:22; Hos_14:7. Jerome here renders it, Virgultum. The Septuagint renders it, νηγγείλαµεν+Hς+παιδίον+Kναντίον+α 9τοL anengeilamen hos paidion enantion autou - ‘We have made proclamation as a child before him.’ But what idea they attached to it, it is impossible now to say; and equally so to determine how they came to make such a translation. The Chaldee also, leaving the idea that it refers to the Messiah, renders it, ‘And the righteous shall be magnified before him as branches which flourish, and as the tree which sends its roots by the fountains of water; thus shall the holy nation be increased in the land.’ The Syriac translates it, ‘He shall grow up before him as an infant.’ The idea in the passage is plain. It is, that the Messiah would spring up as from an ancient and decayed stock, like a tender shoot or sucker. He would be humble and unpretending in his origin, and would be such that they who had expected a splendid prince would be led to overlook and despise him. And as a root - (‫ וכשׁרשׁ‬vekashoresh). The word ‘root’ here is evidently used by synecdoche for the sprout that starts up from a root (see the notes at Isa_11:10, where the word is used in the same sense). Out of a dry ground - In a barren waste, or where there is no moisture. Such a sprout or shrub is small, puny, and withered up. Such shrubs spring up in deserts, where they are stinted for want of moisture, and they are most striking objects to represent that which is humble and unattractive in its personal appearance. The idea here is, that the Messiah would spring from an ancient family decayed, but in whose root, so to speak, there would be life, as there is remaining life in the stump of a tree that is fallen down; but that there would be nothing in his external appearance that would attract attention, or meet the expectations of the nation. Even then he would not be like a plant of vigorous growth supplied with abundant rains, and growing in a rich and fertile soil, but he would be like the stinted growth of the sands of the desert. Can anything be more strikingly expressive of the actual appearance of the Redeemer, as compared with the expectation of the Jews? Can there be found anywhere a more striking fulfillment of a prophecy than this? And how will the infidel answer the argument thus furnished for the fact that Isaiah was inspired, and that his record was true? He hath no form - That is, no beauty. He has not the beautiful form which was anticipated; the external glory which it was supposed he would assume. On the meaning of the word ‘form,’ see the notes at Isa_52:14. It is several times used in the sense of beautiful form or figure (Gen_29:17; Gen_39:6; Gen_41:18; Deu_21:11; Est_2:17; compare 1Sa_16:18). Here it means the same as beautiful form or appearance, and refers to his state of abasement rather than to his own personal beauty. There is no evidence that in person he was in any way deformed, or otherwise than beautiful, except as excessive grief may have changed his natural aspect (see the note at Isa_52:14). Nor comeliness - (‫ הדר‬hadar). This word is translated honor, glory, majesty Deu_33:17; Psa_29:4; Psa_149:9; Dan_11:20; excellency Isa_35:2; beauty Pro_20:29; Psa_110:3; 2Ch_20:21. It may be applied to the countenance, to the general aspect, or to the ornaments or apparel of the person. Here it refers to the appearance of the Messiah, as having nothing that was answerable to their expectations. He had no robes of royalty; no diadem sparkling on his brow; no splendid retinue; no gorgeous array. And when we shall see him - This should be connected with the previous words, and should be translated, ‘that we should regard him, or attentively look upon him.’ The idea is, that there was in his external appearance no such beauty as to lead them to look with interest and attention upon him; nothing that should attract them, as people are attracted by the dazzling

and splendid objects of this world. If they saw him, they immediately looked away from him as if he were unworthy of their regard. There is no beauty that we should desire him - He does not appear in the form which we had anticipated. He does not come with the regal pomp and splendor which it was supposed he would assmne. He is apparently of humble rank; has few attendants, and has disappointed wholly the expectation of the nation. In regard to the personal appearance of the Redeemer, it is remarkable that the New Testament has given us no information. Not a hint is dropped in reference to his height of stature, or his form; respecting the color of his hair, his eyes, or his complexion. In all this, on which biographers are usually so full and particular, the evangelists are wholly silent. There was evidently design in this; and the purpose was probably to prevent any painting, statuary, or figure of the Redeemer, that would have any claim to being regarded as correct or true. As it stands in the New Testament, there is lust the veil of obscurity thrown over this whole subject which is most favorable for the contemplation of the incarnate Deity. We are told flint he was a man; we are told also that he was God. The image to the mind’s eye is as obscure in the one case as the other; and in both, we are directed to his moral beauty, his holiness, and benevolence, as objects of contemplation, rather than to his external appearance or form. It may be added that there is no authentic information in regard to his appearance that has come down to us by tradition. All the works of sculptors and painters in attempting to depict his form are the mere works of fancy, and are undoubtedly as unlike the glorious reality as they are contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bible. There is, indeed, a letter extant which is claimed by some to have been written by Publius Lentulus, to the Emperor Tiberius, in the time when the Saviour lived, and which gives a description of his personal appearance. As this is the only legend of antiquity which even claims to be a description of his person, and as it is often printed, and is regarded as a curiosity, it may not be improper here to present it in a note. This letter is pronounced by Calmer to be spurious, and it has been abundantly proved to be so by Prof. Robinson (see Bib. Rep. vol. ii. pp. 367-393). The main arguments against its anthenticity, and which entirely settle the question, are: 1. The discrepancies and contradictions which exist in the various copies. 2. The fact that in the time of the Saviour, when the epistle purports to have been written, it can be demonstrated that no such man as Publius Lentulus was governor of Judea, or had any such office there, as is claimed for him in the inscriptions to the epistle. 3. That for fifteen hundred years no such epistle is quoted or referred to by any writer - a fact which could not have occurred if any such epistle had been in existence. 4. That the style of the epistle is not such as an enlightened Roman would have used, but is such as an ecclesiastic would have employed. 5. That the contents of the epistle are such as a Roman would not have used of one who was a Jew. See these arguments presented in detail in the place above referred to. It may be added, that this is the only pretended account which bas come down to us respecting the personal appearance of the Saviour, except the fable that Christ sent his portrait to Abgar, king of Edessa, in reply to a letter which he had sent requesting him to come and heal him; and the equally fabulous legend, that the impression of his countenance was left upon the handkerchief of the holy Veronica.

2. CLARKE, “For he shall grow up - Supposes something to have preceded; as it might be asked, what or who shall ‘grow up before him,’ etc. As the translation now stands, no correct

answer can be given to this question. The translation then is wrong, the connection broken, and the sense obscured. ‫ זרוע‬zeroa, translated the arm, from the root zara. 1. To sow, or plant; also seed, etc. 2. The limb which reaches from the shoulder to the hand, called the arm; or more properly beginning at the shoulder and ending at the elbow. The translator has given the wrong sense of the word. It would be very improper to say, the arm of the Lord should grow up before him; but by taking the word in its former sense, the connection and metaphor would be restored, and the true sense given to the text. ‫ זרע‬zera signifies, not only the seed of herbs, but children, offspring, or posterity. The same word we find Gen_3:15, where Christ is the Seed promised. See also Gen_22:17, Gen_22:18; Gen_26:4; Gen_28:14. Hence the Seed of the woman, the Seed promised to the patriarchs is, according to Isaiah, the Seed of the Lord, the Child born, and the Son given; and according to St. John, ‘the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ ‫ זרע‬then, in this place, should be understood to mean Jesus Christ, and him alone. To speak here of the manifestation of the arm or power of God would be irregular; but to suppose the text to speak of the manifestation of Jesus Christ would be very proper, as the whole of the chapter is written concerning him, particularly his humiliation and sufferings, and the reception he should meet with from the Jewish nation. “The first verse of this chapter is quoted Joh_12:38, and the former part of the same verse Rom_10:16. But no objection of importance can be brought forward from either of these quotations against the above explanation, as they are quoted to show the unbelief of the Jews in not receiving Christ as the promised Messiah.” He hath no form nor comeliness “He hath no form nor any beauty” Ουκ+ειδος+αυτ<,+ουδε+αξιωµα,+Yνα+ειδωµεν+αυτον·+ουδε+θεωρια,+Yνα+επιθυµωµεν+αυτο ν. “He hath no form, nor any beauty, that we should regard him; nor is his countenance such that we should desire him.” Symmachus; the only one of the ancients that has translated it rightly.

3. GILL, “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,.... Which springs out of the earth without notice; low in its beginning, slow in its growth, liable to be crushed with the foot, or destroyed with the frost, and no great probability of its coming to any perfection; or rather as a little "sucker", as the word (b) signifies, which grows out of the root of a tree, at some little distance from it, of which no notice or care is taken, nor anything hoped for from it; and the figure denotes the mean and unpromising appearance of Christ at his incarnation; which is the reason given why the Jews in general disbelieved, rejected, and despised him; for this phrase of "growing up" does not design his exaltation, or rising up from a low to a high estate; but his mean entrance into the world, like that of the springing up of a low and insignificant plant or shrub out of the earth: and the phrase "before him" is to be understood either of God the Father, by whom he was taken notice of, though not by men; and in whose sight he was precious, though despised by men; or his growing up, and the manner of it, or his mean appearance, were all

before the Lord, and according to his will: or else it may be understood of Christ himself, and be rendered "before himself", who was meek and lowly, and was mean and low in his own eyes; or rather it may be interpreted of the unbelieving Jew, of any or everyone of them that did not believe the report concerning him: because before him, in the sight of everyone of them, he sprung up in the manner described; unless it can be thought that it would be better rendered "to his face" (c); or "to his appearance"; that is, as to his outward appearance, in the external view of him, so he grew up: and as a root out of a dry ground; or rather, "as a branch from a root out of a dry ground"; agreeably to Isa_11:1, meaning not so much the land of Judea, where he was born; or the country of Galilee, where he was brought up; as the family of David, from whence he sprung, which was reduced to a very low condition when he was born of it; his supposed father being a carpenter, and his real mother a poor virgin in Nazareth, though both of the lineage and house of David; from this passage the ancient Jews (d) are said to conclude that the Messiah would be born without a father, or the seed of man: he hath no form nor comeliness; like a poor plant or shrub just crept out of the ground, in a dry and barren soil, ready to wither away as soon as up; has no strength nor straightness, of body; without verdure, leaves, blossom, and fruit things which make plants comely and beautiful. This regards not the countenance of Christ, which probably was comely, as were his types Moses and David; since he is said to be "fairer than the children of men"; and since his human nature was the immediate produce of the Holy Ghost, and without sin: but his outward circumstances; there was no majesty in him, or signs of it; it did not look probable that he would be a tall cedar, or a prince in Israel, much less the Prince Messiah; he was born of mean parents; brought up in a contemptible part of the country; lived in a town out of which no good is said to come; dwelt in a mean cottage, and worked at a trade: and when we shall see him: as he grows up, and comes into public life and service, declaring himself, or declared by others, to be the Messiah: here the prophet represents the Jews that would live in Christ's time, who would see his person, hear his doctrines, and be witnesses of his miracles, and yet say, there is no beauty, that we should desire him; or "sightliness" (e) in him; nothing that looks grand and majestic, or like a king; they not beholding with an eye of faith his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father; only viewing him in his outward circumstances, and so made their estimate of him; they expected the Messiah as a temporal prince, appearing in great pomp and state, to deliver them from the Roman yoke, and restore their nation to its former splendour and glory; and being disappointed herein was the true reason of their unbelief, before complained of, and why they did not desire him, who is the desire of all nations.

4. HENRY, “The contempt they put upon the person of Christ because of the meanness of his appearance, Isa_53:2, Isa_53:3. This seems to come in as a reason why they rejected his doctrine, because they were prejudiced against his person. When he was on earth many that heard him preach, and could not but approve of what they heard, would not give it any regard or entertainment, because it came from one that made so small a figure and had no external advantages to recommend him. Observe here, 1. The low condition he submitted to, and how he abased and emptied himself. The entry he made into the world, and the character he wore in it, were no way agreeable to the ideas which the Jews had formed of the Messiah and their expectations concerning him, but quite the reverse. (1.) It was expected that his extraction would be very great and noble. He was to be the

Son of David, of a family that had a name like to the names of the great men that were in the earth, 2Sa_7:9. But he sprang out of this royal and illustrious family when it was reduced and sunk, and Joseph, that son of David, who was his supposed father, was but a poor carpenter, perhaps a ship-carpenter, for most of his relations were fishermen. This is here meant by his being a root out of a dry ground, his being born of a mean and despicable family, in the north, in Galilee, of a family out of which, like a dry and desert ground, nothing green, nothing great, was expected, in a country of such small repute that it was thought no good thing could come out of it. His mother, being a virgin, was as dry ground, yet from her he sprang who is not only fruit, but root. The seed on the stony ground had no root; but, though Christ grew out of a dry ground, he is both the root and the offspring of David, the root of the good olive. (2.) It was expected that he should make a public entry, and come in pomp and with observation; but, instead of that, he grew up before God, not before men. God had his eye upon him, but men regarded him not: He grew up as a tender plant, silently and insensibly, and without any noise, as the corn, that tender plant, grows up, we know not how, Mar_4:27. Christ rose as a tender plant, which, one would have thought, might easily be crushed, or might be nipped in one frosty night. The gospel of Christ, in its beginning, was as a grain of mustard-seed, so inconsiderable did it seem, Mat_13:31, Mat_13:32. (3.) It was expected that he should have some uncommon beauty in his face and person, which should charm the eye, attract the heart, and raise the expectations of all that saw him. But there was nothing of this kind in him; not that he was in the least deformed or misshapen, but he had no form nor comeliness, nothing extraordinary, which one might have thought to meet with in the countenance of an incarnate deity. Those who saw him could not see that there was any beauty in him that they should desire him, nothing in him more than in another beloved, Son_5:9. Moses, when he was born, was exceedingly fair, to such a degree that it was looked upon as a happy presage, Act_7:20; Heb_11:23. David, when he was anointed, was of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to, 1Sa_16:12. But our Lord Jesus had nothing of that to recommend him. Or it may refer not so much to his person as to the manner of his appearing in the world, which had nothing in it of sensible glory. His gospel is preached, not with the enticing words of man's wisdom, but with all plainness, agreeable to the subject. (4.) It was expected that he should live a pleasant life, and have a full enjoyment of all the delights of the sons and daughters of men, which would have invited all sorts to him; but, on the contrary, he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. It was not only his last scene that was tragical, but his whole life was so, not only mean, but miserable, - but one continued chain Of labour, sorrow, and consuming pain. - Sir R. Blackmore Thus, being made sin for us, he underwent the sentence sin had subjected us to, that we should eat in sorrow all the days of our life (Gen_3:17), and thereby relaxed much of the rigour and extremity of the sentence as to us. His condition was, upon many accounts, sorrowful. He was unsettled, had not where to lay his head, lived upon alms, was opposed and menaced, and endured the contradiction of sinners against himself. His spirit was tender, and he admitted the impressions of sorrow. We never read that he laughed, but often that he wept. Lentulus, in his epistle to the Roman senate concerning Jesus, says, “he was never seen to laugh;” and so worn and macerated was he with continual grief that when he was but a little above thirty years of age he was taken to be nearly fifty, Joh_8:57. Grief was his intimate acquaintance; for he acquainted himself with the grievances of others, and sympathized with them, and he never set his own at a distance; for in his transfiguration he talked of his own decease, and in his triumph he wept over Jerusalem. Let us look unto him and mourn. 2. The low opinion that men had of him, upon this account. Being generally apt to judge of persons and things by the sight of the eye, and according to outward appearance, they saw no

beauty in him that they should desire him. There was a great deal of true beauty in him, the beauty of holiness and the beauty of goodness, enough to render him the desire of all nations; but the far greater part of those among whom he lived, and conversed, saw none of this beauty, for it was spiritually discerned. Carnal hearts see no excellency in the Lord Jesus, nothing that should induce them to desire an acquaintance with him or interest in him. Nay, he is not only not desired, but he is despised and rejected, abandoned and abhorred, a reproach of men, an abject, one that men were shy of keeping company with and had not any esteem for, a worm and no man. He was despised as a mean man, rejected as a bad man. He was the stone which the builders refused; they would not have him to reign over them. Men, who should have had so much reason as to understand things better, so much tenderness as not to trample upon a man in misery - men whom he came to seek and save rejected him: “We hid as it were our faces from him, looked another way, and his sufferings were as nothing to us; though never sorrow was like unto his sorrow. Nay, we not only behaved as having no concern for him, but as loathing him, and having him in detestation.” It may be read, He hid as it were his face from us, concealed the glory of his majesty, and drew a veil over it, and therefore he was despised and we esteemed him not, because we could not see through that veil. Christ having undertaken to make satisfaction to the justice of God for the injury man had done him in his honour by sin (and God cannot be injured except in his honour), he did it not only by divesting himself of the glories due to an incarnate deity, but by submitting himself to the disgraces due to the worst of men and malefactors; and thus by vilifying himself he glorified his Father: but this is a good reason why we should esteem him highly, and study to do him honour; let him be received by us whom men rejected.

5. JAMISON. “tender plant — Messiah grew silently and insensibly, as a sucker from an ancient stock, seemingly dead (namely, the house of David, then in a decayed state) (see on Isa_11:1). shall grow ... hath — rather, “grew up ... had.” before him — before Jehovah. Though unknown to the world (Joh_1:11), Messiah was observed by God, who ordered the most minute circumstances attending His growth. root — that is, sprout from a root. form — beautiful form: sorrow had marred His once beautiful form. and when we shall see — rather, joined with the previous words, “Nor comeliness (attractiveness) that we should look (with delight) on Him.” there is — rather, “was.” The studied reticence of the New Testament as to His form, stature, color, etc., was designed to prevent our dwelling on the bodily, rather than on His moral beauty, holiness, love, etc., also a providential protest against the making and veneration of images of Him. The letter of P. Lentulus to the emperor Tiberius, describing His person, is spurious; so also the story of His sending His portrait to Abgar, king of Edessa; and the alleged impression of His countenance on the handkerchief of Veronica. The former part of this verse refers to His birth and childhood; the latter to His first public appearance [Vitringa].

6. K&D, “The confession, which follows, grows out of the great lamentation depicted by Zechariah in Zec_12:11. “And he sprang up like a layer-shoot before Him, and like a rootsprout out of dry ground: he had no form, and no beauty; and we looked, and there was no look, such that we could have found pleasure in him.” Isa_53:2, as a sequel to Isa_53:1, looks back to the past, and describes how the arm of Jehovah manifested itself in the servant's course

of life from the very beginning, though imperceptibly at first, and unobserved by those who merely noticed the outside. The suffix of ‫ ְל ָפנָ יו‬cannot refer to the subject of the interrogative sentence, as Hahn and Hofmann suppose, for the answer to the quis there is nemo; it relates to Jehovah, by which it is immediately preceded. Before Jehovah, namely, so that He, whose counsel thus began to be fulfilled, fixed His eye upon him with watchfulness and protecting care, he grew up ‫`_וֹנֵ ק‬, ַ like the suckling, i.e., (in a horticultural sense) the tender twig which sucks up its nourishment from the root and stem (not as Hitzig supposes, according to Eze_31:16, from the moisture in the soil); for the tender twig upon a tree, or trunk, or stalk, is called ‫( יּנֶ ֶקת‬for which we have ‫ יוֹנֵ ק‬here): vid., Eze_17:22, the twig of a cedar; Psa_80:12 (11), of a vine; Job_8:16, of a liana. It is thought of here as a layer, as in Eze_17:22; and, indeed, as the second figure shows when taken in connection with Isa_11:1, as having been laid down after the proud cedar of the Davidic monarchy from which it sprang had been felled; for elsewhere it is compared to a shoot which springs from the root left in the ground after the tree has been felled. Both figures depict the lowly and unattractive character of the small though vigorous beginning. The expression “out of dry ground,” which belongs to both figures, brings out, in addition, the miserable character of the external circumstances in the midst of which the birth and growth of the servant had taken place. The “dry ground” is the existing state of the enslaved and degraded nation; i.e., he was subject to all the conditions inseparable from a nation that had been given up to the power of the world, and was not only enduring all the consequent misery, but was in utter ignorance as to its cause; in a word, the dry ground is the corrupt character of the age. In what follows, the majority of the commentators have departed from the accents, and adopted the rendering, “he had no form and no beauty, that we should look at Him” (should have looked at Him), viz., with fixed looks that loved to dwell upon Him. This rendering was adopted by Symmachus and Vitringa (aνα+εbδωµεν+α9τόν; ut ipsum respiceremus). But Luther, Stier, and others, very properly adhere to the existing punctuation; since the other would lead us to expect ‫וֹ‬d ‫ וְ נִ ְר ֶאה‬instead of ‫וְ נִ ְר ֵאהוּ‬, and the close reciprocal relation of ‫ ֶאה‬+ְ‫ּא־מר‬ ַ ‫וְ נִ ְר ֵאהוּ וְ ל‬, which resembles a play upon the words, is entirely expunged. The meaning therefore is, “We saw Him, and there was nothing in His appearance to make us desire Him, or feel attracted by Him.” The literal rendering of the Hebrew, with its lively method of transferring you into the precise situation, is ut concupisceremus eum (delectaremur eo); whereas, in our oriental style, we should rather have written ut concupivissemus, using the pluperfect instead of the imperfect, or the tense of the associated past. Even in this sense ‫ וְ נִ ְר ֵאהוּ‬is very far from being unmeaning: He dwelt in Israel, so that they had Him bodily before their eyes, but in His outward appearance there was nothing to attract or delight the senses.

7. CALVIN, “2.Yet he shall grow up before him as a twig. This verse refers to what was formerly said, that Christ will at first have no magnificence or outward display among men; but that before God he will nevertheless be highly exalted, and will be held in estimation. Hence we see that we must not judge of the glory of Christ by human view, but must discern by faith what is taught us concerning him by the Holy Scriptures; and therefore the phrase “ him,” is here contrasted with human senses, which cannot comprehend that lofty greatness. Almost the same metaphor was used by the Prophet, (Isa_11:1) when he said, “ branch shall spring out of the stock of Jesse;” for the house of David was like a dry stock, in which no rigor and no comeliness was visible, and on that account is there called not a royal house, but “” a name which bore no celebrity. Only the Prophet adds here, —

In a desert land; by which he means that Christ’ power of springing up will not be derived from the sap of the earth, as in trees, but contrary to the ordinary course of nature. They who in this passage speculate about the virgin Mary, and suppose that she is called a desert land, because she conceived by the Holy Ghost, and not by ordinary generation, speak beside the purpose; for the present subject is not the birth of Christ, but his whole reign. He says that it will resemble a twig springing out of a dry soil, which looks as if it could never become large. If we take into account the whole method of establishing his kingdom, and the agency which he employed, and how feeble were its beginnings, and how many foes it encountered, we shall easily understand that all these things were fulfilled as they had been foretold. What sort of men were the Apostles that they should subdue so many kings and nations by the sword of the word? Are they not justly compared to offshoots? Thus the Prophet shows by what means the kingdom of Christ must be set up and established, that we may not judge of it by human conceptions. He hath no form nor comeliness. This must be understood to relate not merely to the person of Christ, who was despised by the world, and was at length condemned to a disgraceful death; but to his whole kingdom, which in the eyes of men had no beauty, no comeliness, no splendor, which, in short, had nothing that could direct or captivate the hearts of men to it by its outward show. Although Christ arose from the dead, yet the Jews always regarded him as a person who had been crucified and disgraced, in consequence of which they haughtily disdained him.

3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

1.BARNES, “He is despised - This requires no explanation; and it needs no comment to show that it was fulfilled. The Redeemer was eminently the object of contempt and scorn alike by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Romans. In his life on earth it was so; in his death it was still so; and since then, his name and person have been extensively the object of contempt. Nothing is a more striking fulfillment of this than the conduct of the Jews at the present day. The very name of Jesus of Nazareth excites contempt; and they join with their fathers who rejected him in heaping on him every term indicative of scorn.

Rejected of men - This phrase is full of meaning, and in three words states the whole history of man in regard to his treatment of the Redeemer. The name ‘The Rejected of Men,’ will express all the melancholy history; rejected by the Jews; by the rich; the great and the learned; by the mass of people of every grade, and age, and rank. No prophecy was ever more strikingly fulfilled; none could condense more significancy into few words. In regard to the exact sense of the phrase, interpreters have varied. Jerome renders it, Novissium virorum - ‘The last of men;’ that is, the most abject and contemptible of mankind. The Septuagint, ‘His appearance is dishonored (hτιµον atimon) and defective (Kκλειπον ekleipon) more than the sons of men.’ The Chaldee, ‘He is indeed despised, but he shall take away the glory of all kings; they are infirm and sad, as if exposed to all calamities and sorrows.’ Some render it, ‘Most abject of men,’ and they refer to Job_19:14, where the same word is used to denote those friends who forsake the unfortunate. The word ‫ חדל‬chadel used here, is derived from the verb ‫ חדל‬chadal, which means “to cease, to leave off, to desist”; derived, says Gesenius (Lexicon), from the idea of becoming languid, flaccid; and thence transferred to the act of ceasing from labor. It means usually, to cease, to desist from, to leave, to let alone (see 1Ki_22:6-15; Job_7:15; Job_10:20; Isa_2:22). According to Gesenius, the word here means to be left, to be destitute, or forsaken; and the idea is, that be was forsaken by people. According to Hengstenberg (Christol.) it means ‘the most abject of men,’ he who ceases from men, who ceases to belong to the number of men; that is, who is the most abject of men. Castellio renders it, Minus quash homo - ‘Less than a man.’ Junius and Tremellius, Abjectissimus virorum - ‘The most abject of men.’ Grotius, ‘Rejected of men.’ Symmachus, kλάχιστος+"νδρmν Elachistos andron - ‘the least of men.’ The idea is, undoubtedly, somehow that of ceasing from human beings, or from being regarded as belonging to mankind. There was a ceasing, or a withdrawing of that which usually pertains to man, and which belongs to him. And the thought probably is, that he was not only ‘despised,’ but that there was an advance on that - there was a ceasing to treat him as if he had human feelings, and was in any way entitled to human fellowship and sympathy. It does not refer, therefore, so much to the active means employed to reject him, as to the fact that he was regarded as cut off from man; and the idea is not essentially different from this, that he was the most abject and vile of mortals in the estimation of others; so vile as not to be deemed worthy of the treatment due to the lowest of men. This idea has been substantially expressed in the Syriac translation. A man of sorrows - What a beautiful expression! A man who was so sad and sorrowful; whose life was so full of sufferings, that it might be said that that was the characteristic of the man. A similar phraseology occurs in Pro_29:1, ‘He that being often reproved,’ in the margin, ‘a man of reproofs;’ in the Hebrew, ‘A man of chastisements,’ that is, a man who is often chastised. Compare Dan_10:11 : ‘O Daniel, a man greatly beloved,’ Margin, as in Hebrew, ‘A man of desires; that is, a man greatly desired. Here, the expression means that his life was characterized by sorrows. How remarkably this was fulfilled in the life of the Redeemer, it is not necessary to attempt to show. And acquainted with grief - Hebrew, ‫ וידוע חלי‬viydua‛ choliy - ‘And knowing grief.’ The word rendered ‘grief’ means usually sickness, disease Deu_7:15; Deu_28:61; Isa_1:5; but it also means anxiety, affliction Ecc_5:16; and then any evil or calamity Ecc_6:2. Many of the old interpreters explain it as meaning, that he was known or distinguished by disease; that is, affected by it in a remarkable manner. So Symm. Γνωστός+νόσ< Gnostos noso. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, Scientem infirmitatem. The Septuagint renders the whole clause, ‘A man in affliction (Kν+πληγq en plege), and knowing to bear languor, or disease’ (εrδsˇ+φέρειν+µαλακίαν

eidos pherein malakian). But if the word here means disease, it is only a figurative designation of

severe sufferings both of body and of soul. Hengstenberg, Koppe, and Ammon, suppose that the figure is taken from the leprosy, which was not only one of the most severe of all diseases, but was in a special manner regarded as a divine judgment. They suppose that many of the expressions which follow may be explained with reference to this (compare Heb_4:15). The idea is, that he was familiar with sorrow and calamity. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that he was to be himself sick and diseased; but that he was to be subject to various kinds of calamity, and that it was to be a characteristic of his life that he was familiar with it. He was intimate with it. He knew it personally; he knew it in others. He lived in the midst of scenes of sorrow, and be became intimately acquainted with its various forms, and with its evils. There is no evidence that the Redeemer was himself sick at any time - which is remarkable - but there is evidence in abundance that he was familiar with all kinds of sorrow, and that his own life was a life of grief. And we hid as it were our faces from him - There is here great variety of interpretation and of translation. The margin reads, ‘As an hiding of faces from him,’ or ‘from us,’ or, ‘He hid as it were his face from us.’ The Hebrew is literally, ‘And as the hiding of faces from him, or from it;’ and Hengstenberg explains it as meaning, ‘He was as an hiding of the face before it.’ that is, as a thing or person before whom a man covers his face, because he cannot bear the disgusting sight. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, ‘His face was as it were hidden and despised.’ The Septuagint, ‘For his countenance was turned away’ ("πέστρυπταw apestraptai). The Chaldee, ‘And when he took away his countenance of majesty from us, we were despised and reputed as nothing.’ Interpreters have explained it in various ways. 1. ‘He was as one who hides his face before us;’ alluding, as they suppose, to the Mosaic law, which required lepers to cover their faces Lev_13:45, or to the custom of covering the face in mourning, or for shame. 2. Others explain it as meaning, ‘as one before whom is the covering of the face, that is, before whom a man covers the face from shame or disgust. So Gesenius. 3. Others, ‘He was as one causing to conceal the face,’ that is, he induced others to cover the face before him. His sufferings were so terrible as to induce them to turn away. So John H. Michaelis. The idea seems to be, that he was as one from whom people hide their faces, or turn away. This might either arise from a sight of his sufferings, as being so offensive that they would turn away in pain - as in the case of a leper; or it might be, that he was so much an object of contempt, and so unlike what they expected, that they would hide their faces and turn away in scorn. This latter I suppose to be the meaning; and that the idea is, that he was so unlike what they had expected, that they hid their faces in affected or real contempt. And we esteemed him not - That is, we esteemed him as nothing; we set no value on him. In order to give greater energy to a declaration, the Hebrews frequently express a thing positively and then negatively. The prophet had said that they held him in positive contempt; he here says that they did not regard him as worthy of their notice. He here speaks in the name of his nation - as one of the Jewish people. ‘We, the Jews, the nation to whom he was sent, did not esteem him as the Messiah, or as worthy of our affection or regard.’

2. CLARKE, “Acquainted with grief - For ‫ וידוע‬vidua, familiar with grief, eight MSS. and one edition have ‫ וירע‬veyada, and knowing grief; the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate read it ‫ויודע‬ veyodea.

We hid as it were our faces from him “As one that hideth his face from us” - For ‫ וכמסתר‬uchemaster, four MSS. (two ancient) have ‫ וכמסתיר‬uchemastir, one MS. ‫ ומסתיר‬umastir. For ‫ פנים‬panim, two MSS. have ‫ פניו‬panaiu; so likewise the Septuagint and Vulgate. Mourners covered up the lower part of their faces, and their heads, 2Sa_15:30; Eze_29:17; and lepers were commanded by the law, Lev_13:45, to cover their upper lip. From which circumstance it seems that the Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus, and the Jewish commentators have taken the word ‫נגוע‬ nagua, stricken, in the next verse, as meaning stricken with the leprosy: εν+αφz+οντα, Sym.; αφηµε νον, Aq.; leprosum, Vulg. So my old MS. Bible. I will insert the whole passage as curious: There is not schap to him, ne fairnesse, And we seegen him, and he was not of sigte, And we desiriden him dispisid; and the last of men: Man of souaris and witing infirmitie; And he hid his cheer and despisid; Wherfor ne we settiden bi him: Verili our seeknesse he toke and our sorewis he bair, And we helden him as leprous and smyten of God, and meekid; He forsoth wounded is for our wickednesse, Defoulid is for our hidous giltis The discipline of our pese upon him, And with his wanne wound we ben helid.

3. GILL, “He is despised, and rejected of men,.... Or, "ceaseth from men" (f); was not admitted into the company and conversation of men, especially of figure; or ceased from the class of men, in the opinion of others; he was not reckoned among men, was accounted a worm, and no man; or, if a man, yet not in his senses, a madman, nay, one that had a devil: or "deficient of men"; he had none about him of any rank or figure in life, only some few fishermen, and some women, and publicans, and harlots. The Vulgate Latin version renders it, "the last of men", the most abject and contemptible of mankind; despised, because of the meanness of his birth, and parentage, and education, and of his outward appearance in public life; because of his apostles and audience; because of his doctrines, not agreeably to carnal reason, and his works, some of them being done on the sabbath day, and, as they maliciously suggested, by the help of Satan; and especially because of his ignominious sufferings and death: a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: or "known by grief" (g); he was known by his troubles, notorious for them; these were his constant companions, his familiar acquaintance, with whom he was always conversant; his life was one continued series of sorrow, from the cradle to the cross; in his infancy his life was sought for by Herod, and he was obliged to be taken by his parents, and flee into Egypt; he ate his bread in sorrow, and with the sweat of his brow; he met with much sorrow from the hardness and unbelief of men's hearts, and from the contradiction of sinners against himself, and even much from the frowardness of his own disciples; much from the temptations of Satan, and more from the wrath and justice of God, as the surety of his people; he was exceeding sorrowful in the garden, when his sweat was as it were great drops of blood; and when on the cross, under the hidings of his Father's face, under a sense of divine displeasure for the sins of his people, and enduring the pains and agonies of a

shameful and an accursed death; he was made up of sorrows, and grief was familiar to him. Some render it, "broken with infirmity", or "grief" (h): and we hid as it were our faces from him; as one loathsome and abominable as having an aversion to him, and abhorrence of him, as scorning to look at him, being unworthy of any notice. Some render it, "he hid as it were his face from us" (i); as conscious of his deformity and loathsomeness, and of his being a disagreeable object, as they said; but the former is best: he was despised, and we esteemed him not; which is repeated to show the great contempt cast upon him, and the disesteem he was had in by all sorts of persons; professors and profane, high and low, rich poor, rulers and common people, priests, Scribes, and Pharisees; no set or order of men had any value for him; and all this disgrace and dishonour he was to undergo, to repair the loss of honour the Lord sustained by the sin of man, whose surety Christ became. (f) ‫אישים‬+‫" חדל‬desiit viris", Montanus, Heb.; "desitus virorum", Piscator; "deficiens virorum", Cocceius; "destitutus viris", Vitringa. (g) ‫חולי‬+‫" וידוע‬notus aegritudine", Montanus; "notus infirmitate," Cocceius. (h) "Attritus infirmitate"; so some in Vatablus, and R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel. Moed. fol. 96. 1. (i) ‫ממנו‬+‫פנים‬+‫" כמסתר‬velut homo abscondens faciem a nobis", Junius & Tremellius; "et tanquam aliquis qui obtegit faciem a nobis", Piscator; "ut res tecta facie averanda prae nobis", Cocceius.

4. SBC, “I. Consider first the humiliation of our blessed Lord. Not only did He suffer extreme pain in body, but also in mind. The divinity of our Lord does not mitigate the intensity of His sufferings. A man’s sorrows are mercifully shortened by his ignorance, short-sightedness, and infirmity; but Christ knew all, even the depth of sin in every heart; He foresaw all, even to the hour of death for each single soul for which He was suffering, even to the Day of Judgment, even to the endless misery of those who would crucify Him afresh. We see in Him no sign of a Divine power superseding human feeling and destroying it, nor anything of the hard indifference and pride of an earthly hero; but that which is most human and tender—pitiful and unswerving patience. In His parting with friends, in His meeting death, in His fear and trust, in His considerate-ness for others, He did and suffered all with the feelings and affections of man. II. Notice the glory transparent through His humiliation. The result of these sufferings is salvation to others and glory to Himself. There appears even in His hours of deepest distress a character of unearthly greatness. At His first word, "I am He," the multitude goes backward and falls with a shock upon the ground. Just now He leant on disciples for support; again He shelters them from harm, saying, "If ye seek Me, let these go their way." Just now He stooped to take comfort of an angel’s hand; again by His Divine authority He keeps back whole legions of angels, lest they should interrupt His work. Likewise His death—though death is a very sign of human weakness—displays His power. He lays His life down freely, as He took it up; so that, in the sweet words of St. Bernard, we may truly say, "Who of us so gently boweth his head when he desires to sleep? To die is indeed of the weakness of man, but to die thus is of the power of God." C. W. Furse, Sermons Preached at Richmond, p. 208.

Isaiah 53:4

Jesus Christ is the comforter we need, for— I. He is an afflicted Man, the most afflicted of all the human race, a Man of sorrows. If He wishes to sympathise He has only to recall the past. We cannot take a single step in our gloomy path without finding some traces of Him. We cannot light upon an affliction through which He has not passed before us. He knows what sorrow is, and this is why He can comfort. We have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. II. Jesus Christ has not only shared our sorrows, He has redeemed our sins. Observe, that He truly represents humanity, not merely because He is its ideal type, but also because He has entered into full communion with its sufferings and made Himself partaker of its destiny. He has thrown Himself into the midst of the battle-field; He has in some sort covered us with His body, and so the chastisement which we deserved has fallen on Him. It is precisely because He is the only man on earth who, as a representative of our race, endured a punishment which He did not deserve, and did not add a fresh sin to a fresh pain, that His suffering rises to the height of a redeeming sacrifice. This redemption was completed on the Cross. It would not have been enough for the Son of man to have been pierced with all the sorrows of humanity except the last. It would not have been enough for Him to have endured all the consequences of man’s rebellion except the last. Death is the wages of sin, and the striking sign of God’s condemnation resting on a guilty world. These wages have been received for us by Him who did not deserve them, because He freely made Himself a partaker of our misery in order to save us. Our comforter is the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. In all our distresses, therefore, and in all our shipwrecks, there is but one shelter, and that is the Cross. E. de Pressensé, The Mystery of Suffering, p. 16 (see also Pulpit Analyst, vol. iii., p. 205).

5. JAMISON. “rejected — “forsaken of men” [Gesenius]. “Most abject of men.” Literally, “He who ceases from men,” that is, is no longer regarded as a man [Hengstenberg]. (See on Isa_52:14; Isa_49:7). man of sorrows — that is, whose distinguishing characteristic was sorrows. acquainted with — familiar by constant contact with. grief — literally, “disease”; figuratively for all kinds of calamity (Jer_6:14); leprosy especially represented this, being a direct judgment from God. It is remarkable Jesus is not mentioned as having ever suffered under sickness. and we hid ... faces — rather, as one who causes men to hide their faces from Him (in aversion) [Maurer]. Or, “He was as an hiding of the face before it,” that is, as a thing before which a man covers his face in disgust [Hengstenberg]. Or, “as one before whom is the covering of the face”; before whom one covers the face in disgust [Gesenius]. we — the prophet identifying himself with the Jews. See Horsley’s view (see on Isa_53:1). esteemed ... not — negative contempt; the previous words express positive.

6. K&D, “On the contrary, the impression produced by His appearance was rather repulsive, and, to those who measured the great and noble by a merely worldly standard, contemptible. “He was despised and forsaken by men; a man of griefs, and well acquainted with disease; and like one from whom men hide their face: despised, and we esteemed Him not.” All these different features are predicates of the erat that is latent in non species ei neque decor and non adspectus. Nibhzeh is introduced again palindromically at the close in Isaiah's peculiar style;

consequently Martini's conjecture ‫וגו‬+‫ נִ ְבזֵ הוּ ּ לּא‬is to be rejected. This nibhzeh (cf., bazoh, Isa_49:7) is the keynote of the description which looks back in this plaintive tone. The predicate cha}dal

'ı̄shı̄m is misunderstood by nearly all the commentators, inasmuch as they take ‫ ִשׁים‬+ִ‫ אי‬as synonymous with ‫בני־אדם‬, whereas it is rather used in the sense of ‫( בני־אישׁ‬lords), as distinguished from bene 'adam, or people generally (see Isa_2:9, Isa_2:11, Isa_2:17). The only other passages in which it occurs are Pro_8:4 and Psa_141:4; and in both instances it signifies persons of rank. Hence Cocceius explains it thus: “wanting in men, i.e., having no respectable men with Him, to support Him with their authority.” It might also be understood as meaning the ending one among men, i.e., the one who takes the last place (S. Kλάχιστος, Jer. novissimus); ִ whereas it is absolutely affirmed that He but in this case He Himself would be described as ‫אישׁ‬, had not the appearance or distinction of such an one. But the rendering deficiens (wanting) is quite correct; compare Job_19:14, “my kinsfolk have failed” (defecerunt, chadelu, cognati mei). The Arabic chadhalahu or chadhala ‛anhu (also points to the true meaning; and from this we have the derivatives chadhil, refusing assistance, leaving without help; and machdhul, helpless, forsaken (see Lane's Arabic Lexicon). In Hebrew, chadal has not only the transitive meaning to discontinue or leave off a thing, but the intransitive, to case or be in want, so that cha}dal 'ı̄shı̄m may mean one in want of men of rank, i.e., finding no sympathy from such men. The chief men of His nation who towered above the multitude, the great men of this world, withdrew their hands from Him, drew back from Him: He had none of the men of any distinction at His side. Moreover, He was ‫אישׁ ַמ ְכאּבוֹת‬, ִ a man of sorrow of heart in all its forms, i.e., a man whose chief distinction was, that His life was one of constant painful endurance. And He was also ‫יְ דוַּ ע ח ִּלי‬, that is to say, not one known through His sickness (according to Deu_1:13, Deu_1:15), which is hardly sufficient to express the genitive construction; nor an acquaintance of disease (S. γνωστς+ νόσ<, familiaris morbo), which would be expressed by ‫ ְמיֻ ַ€ע‬or ‫;מוֹדע‬ ַ but scitus morbi, i.e., one who was placed in a state to make the acquaintance of disease. The deponent passive +ַ‫יָ רוּע‬, acquainted (like batua}ch, confisus; zakbur, mindful; peritus, pervaded, experienced), is supported by +ַ‫ = ַמ€וּע‬+ַ‫;מה־_ָ רוּע‬ ַ Gr. τί+µαθών. The meaning is not, that He had by nature a sickly body, falling out of one disease into another; but that the wrath instigated by sin, and the zeal of self-sacrifice (Psa_69:10), burnt like the fire of a fever in His soul and body, so that even if He had not died a violent death, He would have succumbed to the force of the powers of destruction that were innate in humanity in consequence of sin, and of His own self-consuming conflict with them. Moreover, He was kemaster panı̄m mimmennu. This cannot mean, “like one hiding his face from us,” as Hengstenberg supposes (with an allusion to Lev_13:45); or, what is comparatively better, “like one causing the hiding of the face from him:” for although the feminine of the participle is written ‫מ ְס ֶ‚ ֶרת‬, ַ and in the plural ‫ ַמ ְס ְ‚ ִרים‬for ‫ס‚יִ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬is quite possible, we never meet with master for mastı̄r, like haster for hastı̄r in the infinitive (Isa_29:15, cf., Deu_26:12). Hence

master must be a noun (of the form marbets, marbeq, mashcheth); and the words mean either “like the hiding of the face on our part,” or like one who met with this from us, or (what is more natural) like the hiding of the face before his presence (according to Isa_8:17; Isa_50:6; Isa_54:8; Isa_59:2, and many other passages), i.e., like one whose repulsive face it is impossible

to endure, so that men turn away their face or cover it with their dress (compare Isa_50:6 with Job_30:10). And lastly, all the predicates are summed up in the expressive word nibhzeh: He was despised, and we did not think Him dear and worthy, but rather “esteemed Him not,” or rather did not estimate Him at all, or as Luther expresses it, “estimated Him at nothing” (cha

shabh, to reckon, value, esteem, as in Isa_13:17; Isa_33:8; Mal_3:16). The second turn closes here. The preaching concerning His calling and His future was not believed; but the Man of sorrows was greatly despised among us.

7. CALVIN, “3.Despised and rejected. This verse conveys the same statement as the preceding, namely, that Christ will be “” by men, in consequence of their beholding in him nothing but grief and infirmity. These things needed to be often repeated to the Jews, that they might not form a false conception of Christ and his kingdom; for, in order to know his glory, we must proceed from his death to his resurrection. Many stumble at his death, as if he had been vanquished and overwhelmed by it; but we ought to contemplate his power and majesty in the resurrection; and if any one choose to begin with the resurrection, he will not follow the order laid down by the Prophet, nor comprehend the Lord’ strength and power. We hid the face from him. Not without reason does he use the first person, we; for he declares that there will be a universal judgment; and no man will ever be able to comprehend it by his own understanding till the Lord correct and form him anew by his Spirit. Although he appears chiefly to censure the Jews, who ought not to have so haughtily rejected the Son of God promised and offered to them, and therefore reckons himself as one of the number, because he was an individual belonging to that nation; yet let us learn from this passage that all men are accursed and condemned for ingratitude in despising Christ, because they do not even consider him to be worthy of being looked at, but turn away their eyes as if from something detestable.

4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

1.BARNES, “Surely - This is an exceedingly important verse, and is one that is attended with considerable difficulty, from the manner in which it is quoted in the New Testament. The general sense, as it stands in the Hebrew, is not indeed difficult. It is immediately connected in signification with the previous verse. The meaning is, that those who had despised and rejected the Messiah, had greatly erred in condemning him on account of his sufferings and humiliation. ‘We turned away from him in horror and contempt. We supposed that he was suffering on account of some great sin of his own. But in this we erred. It was not for his sins but for ours. It was not that he Was smitten of God for his own sins - as if he had been among the worst of mortals - but it was because he had taken our sins, and was suffering for them. The very thing therefore that gave offence to us, and which made us turn away from him, constituted the most important part of his work, and was really the occasion of highest gratitude. It is an acknowledgment that they had erred, and a confession of that portion of the nation which would be made sensible of their error, that they had judged improperly of the character of the sufferer. The word rendered ‘surely’ (‫' אכן‬aken, Vulgate, vere), is sometimes a particle strongly affirming, meaning truly, of a certain truth Gen_28:16; Exo_2:14; Jer_8:8. Sometimes it is an adversative particle, meaning but yet Psa_31:23; Isa_49:24. It is probably used in that sense here, meaning, that though he was despised by them, yet he was worthy of their esteem and confidence, for he had borne their griefs. He was not suffering for any sins of his own, but in a cause which, so far from rendering him an object of contempt, made him worthy of their highest regard. He hath borne - Hebrew, ‫ נשׂא‬nas'a'. Vulgate, Tulit. Septuagint, φερει pherei - ‘He bears.’ Chald. ‘He prayed (‫ יבעי‬yibe‛ey) for, or on account of our sins.’ Castilio, Tulit ac toleravit. In these versions, the sense is that of sustaining, bearing, upholding, carrying, as when one removes a burden from the shoulders of another, and places it on his own. The word ‫ נשׂא‬nas'a' means properly “to take up, to lift, to raise” Gen_7:17, ‘The waters increased, and lifted up the ark;’ Gen_29:1, ‘And Jacob lifted up his feet (see the margin) and came.’ Hence, it is applied to lifting up a standard Jer_4:6; Jer_50:2 : to lifting up the hand Deu_32:40; to lifting up the head Job_10:15; 2Ki_25:27; to lifting up the eyes (Gen_13:10, et soepe); to lifting up the voice, etc. It then means to bear, to carry, as an infant in the arms Isa_46:3; as a tree does its fruit Eze_17:8, or as a field its produce Psa_70:3; Gen_12:6. Hence, to endure, suffer, permit Job_21:3. ‘Bear with me, suffer me and I will speak.’ Hence, to bear the sin of anyone, to take upon one’s self the suffering which is due to sin (see the notes at Isa_53:12 of this chapter; compare Lev_5:1, Lev_5:17; Lev_17:16; Lev_20:19; Lev_24:15; Num_5:31; Num_9:13; Num_14:34; Num_30:16; Eze_18:19-20). Hence, to bear chastisement, or punishment Job_34:31 : ‘I have borne chastisement, I will not offend anymore.’ It is also used in the sense of taking away the sin of anyone, expiating, or procuring pardon Gen_50:17; Lev_10:17; Job_7:21; Psa_33:5; Psa_85:3. In all cases there is the idea of lifting, sustaining, taking up, and conveying away, as by carrying a burden. It is not simply removing, but it is removing somehow by lifting, or carrying; that is, either by an act of power, or by so taking them on one’s own self as to sustain and carry them. If applied to sin, it means that a man must bear the burden of the punishment of his own sin, or that the suffering which is due to sin is taken up and borne by another. If applied to diseases, as in Mat_8:17, it must mean that he, as it were, lifted them up and bore them away. It cannot mean that the Saviour literally took those sicknesses on himself, and became sick in the place of the sick, became a leper in the place of the leper, or was himself possessed with an evil spirit in the place of those who were possessed Mat_8:16, but it must mean that he took them away by his power, and, as it were, lifted them up, and removed them.

So when it is said Isa_53:12 that he ‘bare the sins of many,’ it cannot mean literally that he took those sins on himself in any such sense as that he became a sinner, but only that he so took them upon himself as to remove from the sinner the exposure to punishment, and to bear himself whatever was necessary as a proper expression of the evil of sin. Peter undoubtedly makes an allusion to this passage Isa_53:12 when he says 1Pe_2:24, ‘Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree’ (see the notes at Isa_53:12). Matthew Mat_8:17 has translated it by …λαβε

elabe (“he took”), a word which does not differ in signification essentially from that used by Isaiah. It is almost exactly the same word which is used by Symmachus ("νελαβε anelabe). Our griefs - The word used here (‫ חלי‬cha}liy) means properly sickness, disease, anxiety, affliction. It does not refer to sins, but to sufferings. It is translated ‘sickness’ Deu_28:61; Deu_7:15; 2Ch_21:15; 1Ki_17:17; ‘disease’ Ecc_6:2; 2Ch_21:18; 2Ch_16:12; Exo_15:26; ‘grief’ (Isa_53:3-4; compare Jer_16:4). It is never in our version rendered sin, and never Used to denote sin. ‘In ninety-three instances,’ says Dr. Magee (On atonement and Sacrifice, p. 229, New York Ed. 1813), ‘in which the word here translated (by the Septuagint) "µαρτίας hamartias, or its kindred verb, is found in the Old Testament in any sense that is not entirely foreign from the passage before us, there occurs but this one in which the word is so rendered; it being in all other cases expressed by "σθένεια astheneia, µαλακία malakia, or some word denoting bodily disease.’ ‘That the Jews,’ he adds, ‘considered this passage as referring to bodily diseases, appears from Whitby, and Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. on Mat_8:17.’ It is rendered in the Vulgate, Languores - ‘Our infirmities.’ In the Chaldee, ‘He prayed for our sins.’ Castellio renders it, Morbos - ‘Diseases;’ and so Junius and Tremellius. The Septuagint has rendered it in this place: ‡µαρτίας Hamartias - ‘Sins;’ though, from what Dr. Kennicott has advanced in his Diss. Gen. Section 79, Dr. Magee thinks there can be no doubt that this is a corruption which has crept into the later copies of the Greek. A few Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint also read it "σθενείας

astheneias, and one copy reads µαλακίας malakias. Matthew Mat_8:17 has rendered it, "σθενείας astheneias - ‘infirmities,’ and intended no doubt to apply it to the fact that the Lord Jesus healed diseases, and there can be no doubt that Matthew has used the passage, not by way of accommodation, but in the true sense in which it is used by Isaiah; and that it means that the Messiah would take upon himself the infirmities of people, and would remove their sources of grief. It does not refer here to the fact that he would take their sins. That is stated in other places Isa_53:6, Isa_53:12. But it means that he was so afflicted, that he seemed to have taken upon himself the sicknesses and sorrows of the world; and taking them upon himself he would bear them away. I understand this, therefore, as expressing the twofold idea that he became deeply afflicted for us, and that. being thus afflicted for us, he was able to carry away our sorrows. In part this would be done by his miraculous power in healing diseases, as mentioned by Matthew; in part by the influence of his religion, in enabling people to bear calamity, and in drying up the fountains of sorrow. Matthew, then, it is believed, has quoted this passage exactly in the sense in which it was used by Isaiah; and if so, it should not be adduced to prove that he bore the sins of men - true as is that doctrine, and certainly as it has been affirmed in other parts of this chapter. And carried - Hebrew, (‫ סבל‬sabal). This word means properly to carry, as a burden; to be laden with, etc. Isa_46:4, Isa_46:7; Gen_49:15. It is applied to carrying burdens 1Ki_5:15; 2Ch_2:2; Neh_4:10, Neh_4:17; Ecc_12:5. The verb with its derivative noun occurs in twenty-six places in the Old Testament, twenty-three of which relate to carrying burdens, two others relate

to sins, and the other Lam_5:7 is rendered, ‘We have borne their iniquities.’ The primary idea is undoubtedly that of carrying a burden; lifting it, and bearing it in this manner. Our sorrows - The word used here (‫ מכאב‬make'ob, from ‫ כאב‬ka'ab, “to have pain, sorrow, to grieve, or be sad”), means properly “pain, sorrow, grief.” In the Old Testament it is rendered ‘sorrow’ and ‘sorrows’ Ecc_1:18; Lam_1:12-18; Isa_65:14; Jer_45:3; Jer_30:15; ‘grief’ Job_16:6; Psa_69:26; 2Ch_6:29; ‘pain’ Job_33:19; Jer_15:18; Jer_51:8. Perhaps the proper difference between this word and the word translated griefs is, that this refers to pains of the mind, that of the body; this to anguish, anxiety, or trouble of the soul; that to bodily infirmity and disease. Kennicott affirms that the word here used is to be regarded as applicable to griefs and distresses of the mind. ‘It is evidently so interpreted,’ says Dr. Magee (p. 220), ‘in Psa_32:10, ‘Many sorrows shall be to the wicked;’ and again, Psa_69:29, ‘But I am poor and sorrowful;’ and again, Pro_14:13, ‘The heart is sorrowful;’ and Ecc_1:18, ‘He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow;’ and so Ecc_2:18; Isa_65:14; Jer_30:15.’ Agreeably to this, the word is translated by Lowth, in our common version, and most of the early English versions, ‘Sorrows.’ The Vulgate renders it, Dolores: the Septuagint, ‘For us he is in sorrow’ (‰δυνŠται odunatai), that is, is deeply grieved, or afflicted. The phrase, therefore, properly seems to mean that he took upon himself the mental sorrows of people. He not only took their diseases, and bore them away, but he also took or bore their mental griefs. That is, he subjected himself to the kind of mental sorrow which was needful in order to remove them. The word which is used by Matthew Mat_8:17, in the translation of this, is νόσου nosou. This word( νόσος nosos) means properly sickness, disease Mat_4:23-24; Mat_9:35; but it is also used in a metaphorical sense for pain, sorrow, evil (Rob. Lex.) In this sense it is probable that it was designed to be used by Matthew. He refers to the general subject of human ills; to the sicknesses, sorrows, pains, and trials of life; and he evidently means, in accordance with Isaiah, that he took them on himself. He was afflicted for them. He undertook the work of removing them. Part he removed by direct miracle - as sickness; part he removed by removing the cause - by taking away sin by the sacrifice of himself - thus removing the source of all ills; and in regard to all, he furnished the means of removing them by his own example and instructions, and by the great truths which he revealed as topics of consolation and support. On this important passage, see Magee, On atonement and Sacrifice, pp. 227-262. Yet we did esteem him stricken - Lowth, ‘Yet we thought him judicially stricken.’ Noyes, ‘We esteemed him stricken from above.’ Jerome (the Vulgate), ‘We thought him to be a leper.’ The Septuagint renders it, ‘We considered him being in trouble (or in labor, Kν+πόν< en poio) and under a stroke (or in a plague or divine judgment, Kν+πληγή en plege), and in affliction.’ Chaldee, ‘We thought him wounded, smitten from the presence of God, and afflicted.’ The general idea is, that they thought he was subjected to great and severe punishment by God for his sins or regarded him as an object of divine disapprobation. They inferred that one who was so abject and so despised; who suffered so much and so long, must have been abandoned by God to judicial sufferings, and that he was experiencing the proper result and effect of his own sins. The word rendered ‘stricken,’ (‫ נגוע‬nagu‛a) means properly “struck,” or “smitten.” It is applied sometimes to the plague, or the leprosy, as an act by which God smites suddenly, and destroys people Gen_12:17; Exo_11:1; Lev_13:3, Lev_13:9, Lev_13:20; 1Sa_6:9; Job_19:21; Psa_73:5, and very often elsewhere. Jerome explains it here by the word leprous; and many of the ancient Jews derived from this word the idea that the Messiah would be afflicted with the leprosy. Probably the idea which the word would convey to those who were accustomed to read the Old Testament in Hebrew would be, that he was afflicted or smitten in some way corresponding to the plague or the leprosy; and as these were regarded as special and direct

divine judgments, the idea would be that he would be smitten judicially by God. or be exposed to his displeasure and his curse. It is to be particularly observed here that the prophet does not say that he would thus be in fact smitten, accursed, and abandoned by God; but only that he would be thus esteemed, or thought, namely, by the Jews who rejected him and put him to death. It is not here said that he was such. Indeed, it is very strongly implied that he was not, since the prophet here is introducing them as confessing their error, and saying that they were mistaken. He was, say they, bearing our sorrows, not suffering for his own sins. Smitten of God - Not that he was actually smitten of God, but we esteemed him so. We treated him as one whom we regarded as being under the divine malediction, and we therefore rejected him. We esteemed him to be smitten by God, and we acted as if such an one should be rejected and contemned. The word used here (‫ נכה‬nakah) means “to smite, to strike,” and is sometimes employed to denote divine judgment, as it is here. Thus it means to smite with blindness Gen_19:11; with the pestilence Num_14:12; with emerods 1Sa_5:6; with destruction, spoken of a land Mal_4:6; of the river Exo_7:25 when he turned it into blood. In all such instances, it means that Yahweh had inflicted a curse. And this is the idea here. They regarded him as under the judicial inflictions of God, and as suffering what his sins deserved. The foundation of this opinion was laid in the belief so common among the Jews, that great sufferings always argued and supposed great guilt, and were proof of the divine displeasure. This question constitutes the inquiry in the Book of Job, and was the point in dispute between Job and friends. And afflicted - We esteemed him to be punished by God. In each of these clauses the words, ‘For his own sins,’ are to be understood. We regarded him as subjected to these calamities on account of his own sins. It did not occur to us that he could be suffering thus for the sins of others. The fact that the Jews attempted to prove that Jesus was a blasphemer, and deserved to die, shows the fulfillment of this, and the estimate which they formed of him (see Luk_23:34; Joh_16:3; Act_3:17; 1Co_2:8).

2. CLARKE, “Surely he Bath borne our griefs “Surely our infirmities he hath borne” - Seven MSS. (two ancient) and three editions have ‫ חליינו‬cholayeynu in the plural number. And carried our sorrows “And our sorrows, he hath carried them” - Seventeen MSS. (two ancient) of Dr. Kennicott’s, two of De Rossi’s, and two editions have the word ‫ הוא‬hu, he, before ‫ סבלם‬sebalam, “carrieth them, “in the text; four other MSS. have it in the margin. This adds force to the sense, and elegance to the construction.

3. GILL, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows,.... Or "nevertheless", as Gussetius (k); notwithstanding the above usage of him; though it is a certain and undoubted truth, that Christ not only assumed a true human nature, capable of sorrow and grief, but he took all the natural sinless infirmities of it; or his human nature was subject to such, as hunger, thirst, weariness, &c.; and to all the sorrow and pain arising from them; the same sorrows and griefs he was liable to as we are, and therefore called ours and hence he had a sympathy with men under affliction and trouble; and, to show his sympathizing spirit, he healed all sorts of bodily diseases; and also, to show his power, he healed the diseases of the soul, by

bearing the sins of his people, and making satisfaction for them; since he that could do the one could do the other; wherefore the evangelist applies this passage to the healing of bodily diseases, Mat_8:17, though the principal meaning of the words may be, that all the sorrows and griefs which Christ bore were not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people; wherefore these griefs and sorrows signify the punishment of sin, and are put for sins, the cause of them and so the apostle interprets them of Christ's bearing our sins in his own body on the tree, 1Pe_2:24, and the Septuagint and Arabic versions render the words here, "he bears our sins"; and the Targum is, "wherefore he will entreat for our sins;'' these being laid upon him, as is afterwards said, were bore by him as the surety of his people; and satisfaction being made for them by his sufferings and death, they are carried and taken away, never to be seen any more: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; so indeed he was by the sword of divine justice, which was awaked against him, and with which he was stricken and smitten, as standing in the room of his people; but then it was not for any sin of his own, as the Jews imagined, but for the sins of those for whom he was a substitute; they looked upon all his sorrows and troubles in life, and at death, as the just judgment of God upon him for some gross enormities he had been guilty of; but in this they were mistaken. The Vulgate Latin version is, "we esteemed him as a leprous person"; and so Aquila and Symmachus render the word; and from hence the Jews call the Messiah a leper (l); they say, "a leper of the house of Rabbi is his name'' as it is said, "surely he hath borne our griefs", &c.; which shows that the ancient Jews understood this prophecy of the Messiah, though produced to prove a wrong character of him; and so it is applied unto him in other ancient writings of theirs; See Gill on Mat_8:17. The words are by some rendered, "and we reckoned him the stricken, smitten of God" (m), and "humbled"; which version of the words proved the conversion of several Jews in Africa, as Andradius and others relate (n); by which they perceived the passage is to be understood not of a mere man, but of God made man, and of his humiliation and sufferings in human nature.

4. HENRY, “In these verses we have, I. A further account of the sufferings of Christ. Much was said before, but more is said here, of the very low condition to which he abased and humbled himself, to which he became obedient even to the death of the cross. 1. He had griefs and sorrows; being acquainted with them, he kept up the acquaintance, and did not grow shy, no, not of such melancholy acquaintance. Were griefs and sorrows allotted him? He bore them, and blamed not his lot; he carried them, and did neither shrink from them, nor sink under them. The load was heavy and the way long, and yet he did not tire, but persevered to the end, till he said, It is finished. 2. He had blows and bruises; he was stricken, smitten, and afflicted. His sorrows bruised him; he felt pain and smart from them; they touched him in the most tender part, especially when God was dishonoured, and when he forsook him upon the cross. All along he was smitten with the tongue, when he was cavilled at and contradicted, put under the worst of characters, and had all manner of evil said against him. At last he was smitten with the hand, with blow after blow. 3. He had wounds and stripes. He was scourged, not under the merciful restriction of the Jewish law, which allowed not

above forty stripes to be given to the worst of male factors, but according to the usage of the Romans. And his scourging, doubtless, was the more severe because Pilate intended it as an equivalent for his crucifixion, and yet it proved a preface to it. He was wounded in his hands, and feet, and side. Though it was so ordered that not a bone of him should be broken, yet he had scarcely in any part a whole skin (how fond soever we are to sleep in one, even when we are called out to suffer for him), but from the crown of his head, which was crowned with thorns, to the soles of his feet, which were nailed to the cross, nothing appeared but wounds and bruises.

5. JAMISON. “Surely ... our griefs — literally, “But yet He hath taken (or borne) our sicknesses,” that is, they who despised Him because of His human infirmities ought rather to have esteemed Him on account of them; for thereby “Himself took OUR infirmities” (bodily diseases). So Mat_8:17 quotes it. In the Hebrew for “borne,” or took, there is probably the double notion, He took on Himself vicariously (so Isa_53:5, Isa_53:6, Isa_53:8, Isa_53:12), and so He took away; His perfect humanity whereby He was bodily afflicted for us, and in all our afflictions (Isa_63:9; Heb_4:15) was the ground on which He cured the sick; so that Matthew’s quotation is not a mere accommodation. See Note 42 of Archbishop Magee, Atonement. The Hebrew there may mean to overwhelm with darkness; Messiah’s time of darkness was temporary (Mat_27:45), answering to the bruising of His heel; Satan’s is to be eternal, answering to the bruising of his head (compare Isa_50:10). carried ... sorrows — The notion of substitution strictly. “Carried,” namely, as a burden. “Sorrows,” that is, pains of the mind; as “griefs” refer to pains of the body (Psa_32:10; Psa_38:17). Mat_8:17 might seem to oppose this: “And bare our sicknesses.” But he uses “sicknesses” figuratively for sins, the cause of them. Christ took on Himself all man’s “infirmities;” so as to remove them; the bodily by direct miracle, grounded on His participation in human infirmities; those of the soul by His vicarious suffering, which did away with the source of both. Sin and sickness are ethically connected as cause and effect (Isa_33:24; Psa_103:3; Mat_9:2; Joh_5:14; Jam_5:15). we did esteem him stricken — judicially [Lowth], namely, for His sins; whereas it was for ours. “We thought Him to be a leper” [Jerome, Vulgate], leprosy being the direct divine judgment for guilt (Lev_13:1-59; Num_12:10, Num_12:15; 2Ch_26:18-21). smitten — by divine judgments. afflicted — for His sins; this was the point in which they so erred (Luk_23:34; Act_3:17; 1Co_2:8). He was, it is true, “afflicted,” but not for His sins.

6. K&D, “Those who formerly mistook and despised the Servant of Jehovah on account of His miserable condition, now confess that His sufferings were altogether of a different character from what they had supposed. “Verily He hath borne our diseases and our pains: He hath laden them upon Himself; but we regarded Him as one stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” It ֵ (the fuller form of +ְ‫ ))ך‬is affirmative here, as in Isa_40:7; might appear doubtful whether ‫‹כן‬ Isa_45:15, or adversative, as in Isa_49:4. The latter meaning grows out of the former, inasmuch as it is the opposite which is strongly affirmed. We have rendered it affirmatively (Jer. vere), not adversatively (verum, ut vero), because Isa_53:4 itself consists of two antithetical halves - a relation which is expressed in the independent pronouns ‫ הוּא‬and ‫אנַ ְחנוּ‬, ֲ that answer to one another. The penitents contrast themselves and their false notion with Him and His real achievement. In Matthew (Mat_8:17) the words are rendered freely and faithfully thus: α9τς+τŽς+

"σθενείας+µmν+…λαβε+καw+τŽς+νόσους+Kβάστασεν. Even the fact that the relief which Jesus afforded to all kinds of bodily diseases is regarded as a fulfilment of what is here affirmed of the Servant of Jehovah, is an exegetical index worth noticing. In Isa_53:4 it is not really sin that is spoken of, but the evil which is consequent upon human sin, although not always the direct consequence of the sins of individuals (Joh_9:3). But in the fact that He was concerned to relieve this evil in all its forms, whenever it came in His way in the exercise of His calling, the relief implied as a consequence in Isa_53:4 was brought distinctly into view, though not the bearing and lading that are primarily noticed here. Matthew has very aptly rendered ‫ נָ ָשׂא‬by …λ ε, and ‫ ָס ַבל‬by Kβάστασε. For whilst ‫סבל‬ ַ denotes the toilsome bearing of a burden that has been taken up, ‫ נָ ָשׂא‬combines in itself the ideas of tollere and ferre. When construed with the accusative of the sin, it signifies to take the debt of sin upon one's self, and carry it as one's own, i.e., to look at it and feel it as one's own (e.g., Lev_5:1, Lev_5:17), or more frequently to bear the punishment occasioned by sin, i.e., to make expiation for it (Lev_17:16; Lev_20:19-20; Lev_24:15), and in any case in which the person bearing it is not himself the guilty person, to bear sin in a mediatorial capacity, for the purpose of making expiation for it (Lev_10:17). The lxx render this ‫ נשׂא‬both in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel λαβεν+‘µαρτίαν, once "ναφέρειν; and it is evident that both of these are to be understood in the sense of an expiatory bearing, and not merely of taking away, as has been recently maintained in opposition to the satisfactio vicaria, as we may see clearly enough from Eze_4:4-8, where the ‫ ֵשׂאת ָעוֹן‬is represented by the prophet in a symbolical action. But in the case before us, where it is not the sins, but “our diseases” (‫ ָח ָליֵ נוּ‬is a defective plural, as the singular would be written ‫)ח ְליֵ נוּ‬ ָ and “our pains” that are the object, this mediatorial sense remains essentially the same. The meaning is not merely that the Servant of God entered into the fellowship of our sufferings, but that He took upon Himself the sufferings which we had to bear and deserved to bear, and therefore not only took them away (as Mat_8:17 might make it appear), but bore them in His own person, that He might deliver us from them. But when one person takes upon himself suffering which another would have had to bear, and therefore not only endures it with him, but in his stead, this is called substitution or representation - an idea which, however unintelligible to the understanding, belongs to the actual substance of the common consciousness of man, and the realities of the divine government of the world as brought within the range of our experience, and one which has continued even down to the present time to have much greater vigour in the Jewish nation, where it has found it true expression in sacrifice and the kindred institutions, than in any other, at least so far as its nationality has not been entirely annulled. (Note: See my Jesus and Hillel, pp. 26, 27.) Here again it is Israel, which, having been at length better instructed, and now bearing witness against itself, laments its former blindness to the mediatorially vicarious character of the deep agonies, both of soul and body, that were endured by the great Sufferer. They looked upon them as the punishment of His own sins, and indeed - inasmuch as, like the friends of Job, they measured the sin of the Sufferer by the sufferings that He endured - of peculiarly great sins. They saw in Him +ַ‫נָ גוּע‬, “one stricken,” i.e., afflicted with a hateful, shocking disease (Gen_12:17; 1Sa_6:9) - such, for example, as leprosy, which was called ‫ נֶ גַ ע‬κατ+ʆ+Kξ (2Ki_15:5, A. "φήµενον, S. Kν+ ‘φ’+“ντα = leprosum, Th. µεµαστιγωµένον, cf., µάστιγες, Mar_3:10, scourges, i.e., bad attacks); also ‫מ ֵ`ה ֱאל ִּהים‬, ֻ “one smitten of God” (from nakhah, root ‫נך‬, ‫ ;נג‬see Comm. on Job, at Job_30:8),

and ‫ ְמ ֻע•ֶ ה‬bowed down (by God), i.e., afflicted with sufferings. The name Jehovah would have been out of place here, where the evident intention is to point to the all-determining divine power generally, whose vengeance appeared to have fallen upon this particular sufferer. The construction mukkeh 'Elohı̄m signifies, like the Arabic muqatal+rabbuh, one who has been defeated in conflict with God his Lord (see Comm. on Job, at Job_15:28); and 'Elohı̄m has the syntactic position between the two adjectives, which it necessarily must have in order to be logically connected with them both.

7. CALVIN, “4.Surely he carried our sicknesses. The particle ‫( אכן‬aken) is not only a strong affirmation, but is likewise equivalent to for, and assigns a reason of something which went before, and which might have been thought new and strange; for it is a monstrous thing that he to whom God has given supreme authority over all the creatures should be thus trampled on and scorned; and if the reason were not assigned, it would have been universally pronounced to be ridiculous. The reason, therefore, of the weakness, pains, and shame of Christ is, that “ carried our sicknesses.” Matthew quotes this prediction, after having related that Christ cured various diseases; though it is certain that he was appointed not to cure bodies, but rather to cure souls; for it is of spiritual disease that the Prophet intends to speak. But in the miracles which Christ performed in curing bodies, he gave a proof of the salvation which he brings to our souls. That healing had therefore a more extensive reference than to bodies, because he was appointed to be the physician of souls; and accordingly Matthew applies to the outward sign what belonged to the truth and reality. We thought him to be smitten, wounded by God, and afflicted. In this second clause he shows how great was the ingratitude and wickedness of the people, who did not know why Christ was so severely afflicted, but imagined that God smote him on account of his own sins, though they knew that he was perfectly innocent, and his innocence was attested even by his judge. (Mat_27:24; Luk_23:4; Joh_18:38) Since therefore they know that an innocent man is punished for sins which he did not commit, why do they not think that it indicated some extraordinary excellence to exist in him? But because they see him wounded and despised, they do not inquire about the cause, and from the event alone, as fools are wont to do, they pronounce judgment. Accordingly, Isaiah complains of the wicked judgment of men, in not considering the cause of Christ’ heavy afflictions; and especially he deplores the dullness of his own nation, because they thought that God was a deadly enemy of Christ, and took no account of their own sins, which were to be expiated in this manner.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

1.BARNES, “But he was wounded - Margin, ‘Tormented.’ Jerome and the Septuagint also render this, ‘He was wounded.’ Junius and Tremellius, ‘He was affected with grief.’ The Chaldee has given a singular paraphrase of it, showing how confused was the view of the whole passage in the mind of that interpreter. ‘And he shall build the house of the sanctuary which was defiled on account of our sins, and which was delivered on account of our iniquities. And in his doctrine, peace shall be multiplied to us. And when we obey his words, our sins shall be remitted to us.’ The Syriac renders it in a remarkable manner, ‘He is slain on account of our sins,’ thus showing that it was a common belief that the Messiah would be violently put to death. The word rendered ‘wounded’ (‫ מחלל‬mecholal), is a Pual participle, from ‫ חלל‬chalal, to bore through, to perforate, to pierce; hence, to wound 1Sa_31:3; 1Ch_10:3; Eze_28:9. There is probably the idea of painful piercing, and it refers to some infliction of positive wounds on the body, and not to mere mental sorrows, or to general humiliation. The obvious idea would be that there would be some act of piercing, some penetrating wound that would endanger or take life. Applied to the actual sufferings of the Messiah, it refers undoubtedly to the piercing of his hands, his feet, and his side. The word ‘tormented,’ in the margin, was added by our translators because the Hebrew word might be regarded as derived from ‫ חול‬chul, to writhe, to be tormented, to be pained - a word not unfrequently applied to the pains of parturition. But it is probable that it is rather to be regarded as derived from ‫ חלל‬chalal, “to pierce, or to wound.” For our transgressions - The prophet here places himself among the people for whom the Messiah suffered these things, and says that he was not suffering for his own sins, but on account of theirs. The preposition ‘for’ (‫ מן‬min) here answers to the Greek διά dia, on account of, and denotes the cause for which he suffered and means, even according to Gesenius (Lex.), here, ‘the ground or motive on account of, or because of which anything is done.’ Compare Deu_7:7; Jdg_5:11; Est_5:9; Psa_68:30; Son_3:8. It is strikingly parallel to the passage in Rom_4:25 : ‘Who was delivered for (διά dia) our offences.’ Compare 2Co_5:21; Heb_9:28; 1Pe_2:24. Here the sense is, that the reason why he thus suffered was, that we were transgressors. All along the prophet keeps up the idea that it was not on account of any sin of which he was guilty that he thus suffered, but it was for the sins of others - an idea which is everywhere exhibited in the New Testament. He was bruised - The word used here (‫ דכא‬daka') means properly to be broken to pieces, to be bruised, to be crushed Job_6:9; Psa_72:4. Applied to mind, it means to break down or crush by calamities and trials; and by the use of the word here, no doubt, the most severe inward and outward sufferings are designated. The Septuagint renders it, Μεµαλάκιστα Memalakista - ‘He was rendered languid,’ or feeble. The same idea occurs in the Syriac translation. The meaning is, that he was under such a weight of sorrows on account of our sins, that he was, as it were,

crushed to the earth. How true this was of the Lord Jesus it is not necessary here to pause to show. The chastisement of our peace - That is, the chastisement by which our peace is effected or secured was laid upon him; or, he took it upon himself,’ and bore it, in order that we might have peace. Each word here is exceedingly important, in order to a proper estimate of the nature of the work performed by the Redeemer. The word ‘chastisement’ (‫ מוּסר‬musar), properly denotes the correction, chastisement, or punishment inflicted by parents on their children, designed to amend their faults Pro_22:15; Pro_23:13. It is applied also to the discipline and authority of kings Job_22:18; and to the discipline or correction of God Job_5:17; Hos_5:2. Sometimes it means admonition or instruction, such as parents give to children, or God to human beings. It is well rendered by the Septuagint by Παιδεία Paideia; by Jerome, Disciplina. The word does not of necessity denote punishment, though it is often used in that sense. It is properly that which corrects, whether it be by admonition, counsel, punishment, or suffering. Here it cannot properly mean punishment - for there is no punishment where there is no guilt, and the Redeemer had done no sin; but it means that he took upon himself the sufferings which would secure the peace of those for whom he died - those which, if they could have been endured by themselves, would have effected their peace with God. The word peace means evidently their peace with God; reconciliation with their Creator. The work of religion in the soul is often represented as peace; and the Redeemer is spoken of as the great agent by whom that is secured. ‘For he is our peace’ (Eph_2:14-15, Eph_2:17; compare Act_10:36; Rom_5:1; Rom_10:15). The phrase ‘upon him,’ means that the burden by which the peace of people was effected was laid upon him, and that he bore it. It is parallel with the expressions which speak of his bearing it, carrying it, etc. And the sense of the whole is, that he endured the sorrows, whatever they were, which were needful to secure our peace with God. And with his stripes - Margin, ‘Bruise.’ The word used here in Hebrew (‫ חבורה‬chabburah) means properly stripe, weal, bruise, that is, the mark or print of blows on the skin. Greek Μώλωπ ι Molopi; Vulgate, Livore. On the meaning of the Hebrew word, see the notes at Isa_1:6. It occurs in the following places, and is translated by stripe, and stripes (Exo_21:25, bis); bruises Isa_1:6; hurt Gen_4:23; blueness Pro_20:30; wounds Psa_38:5; and spots, as of a leopard Jer_13:23. The proper idea is the weal or wound made by bruising; the mark designated by us when we speak of its being ‘black and blue.’ It is not a flesh wound; it does not draw blood; but the blood and other humors are collected under the skin. The obvious and natural idea conveyed by the word here is, that the individual referred to would be subjected to some treatment that would cause such a weal or stripe; that is, that he would be beaten, or scourged. How literally this was applicable to the Lord Jesus, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove (see Mat_27:26). It may be remarked here, that this could not be mere conjecture How could Isaiah, seven hundred years before it occurred, conjecture that the Messiah would be scourged and bruised? It is this particularity of prediction, compared with the literal fulfillment, which furnishes the fullest demonstration that the prophet was inspired. In the prediction nothing is vague and general. All is particular and minute, as if he saw what was done, and the description is as minutely accurate as if he was describing what was actually occurring before his eyes. We are healed - literally, it is healed to us; or healing has happened to us. The healing here referred to, is spiritual healing, or healing from sin. Pardon of sin, and restoration to the favor of God, are not unfrequently represented as an act of healing. The figure is derived from the fact that awakened and convicted sinners are often represented as crushed, broken, bruised by the weight of their transgressions, and the removal of the load of sin is repesented as an act of healing. ‘I said, O Lord, be merciful unto me; heal my soul, for I have sinned againt thee’ Psa_41:4. Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak; O Lord, heal me, for my bones are

vexed’ Psa_6:2. ‘Who forgiveth all thine, iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases Psa_103:3. The idea here is, that the Messiah would be scourged; and that it would be by that scourging that health would be imparted to our souls. It would be in our place, and in our stead; and it would be designed to have the same effect in recovering us, as though it had been inflicted on ourselves. And will it not do it? Is it not a fact that it has such an effect? Is not a man as likely to be recovered from a course of sin and folly, who sees another suffer in his place what he ought himself to suffer, as though he was punished himself? Is not a wayward and dissipated son quite as likely to be recovered to a course of virtue by seeing the sufferings which his career of vice causes to a father, a mother, or a sister, as though he himself When subjected to severe punishment? When such a son sees that he is bringing down the gray hairs of his father with sorrow to the grave; when he sees that he is breaking the heart of the mother that bore him; when he sees a sister bathed in tears, or in danger of being reduced to poverty or shame by his course, it will be far more likely to reclaim him than would be personal suffering, or the prospect of poverty, want, and an early death. And it is on this principle that the plan of salvation is founded. We shall be more certainly reclaimed by the voluntary sufferings of the innocent in our behalf, than we should be by being personally punished. Punishment would make no atonement, and would bring back no sinner to God. But the suffering of the Redeemer in behalf of mankind is adapted to save the world, and will in fact arrest, reclaim, and redeem all who shall ever enter into heaven. (Sin is not only a crime for which we were condemned to die, and which Christ purchased for us the pardon of, but it is a disease which tends directly to the death of our souls, and which Christ provided for the cure of. By his stripes, that is, the sufferings he underwent, he purchased for us the Spirit and grace of God, to mortify our corruptions, which are the distempers of our souls; and to put our souls in a good state of health, that they may be fit to serve God, and prepare to enjoy him. And by the doctrine of Christ’s cross, and the powerful arguments it furnisheth us with against sin, the dominion of sin is broken in us, anal we are fortified against that which feeds the disease - Henry.)

2. CLARKE, “The chastisement of our peace “The chastisement by which our peace is effected” - Twenty-one MSS. and six editions have the word fully and regularly expressed, ‫ שלמינו‬shelomeynu; pacificationum nostrarum, “our pacification;” that by which we are brought into a state of peace and favor with God. Ar. Montan.

3. GILL, “But he was wounded for our transgressions,.... Not for any sins of his own, but for ours, for our rebellions against God, and transgressions of his law, in order to make atonement and satisfaction for them; these were the procuring and meritorious causes of his sufferings and death, as they were taken upon him by him to answer for them to divine justice, which are meant by his being wounded; for not merely the wounds he received in his hands, feet, and side, made by the nails and spear, are meant, but the whole of his sufferings, and especially his being wounded to death, and which was occasionally by bearing the sins of his people; and hereby he removed the guilt from them, and freed them from the punishment due unto them: he was bruised for our iniquities; as bread corn is bruised by threshing it, or by its being ground in the mill, as the manna was; or as spice is bruised in a mortar, he being broken and

crushed to pieces under the weight of sin, and the punishment of it. The ancient Jews understood this of the Messiah; in one place they say (o), "chastisements are divided into three parts, one to David and the fathers, one to our generation, and one to the King Messiah; as it is written, "he was wounded for our transgressions; and bruised for our iniquities":'' and in another place (p), "at that time they shall declare to the Messiah the troubles of Israel in captivity, and the wicked which are among them, that do not mind to know the Lord; he shall lift up his voice, and weep over the wicked among them; as it is said, "he was wounded for our transgressions", &c.'' the chastisement of our peace was upon him; that is, the punishment of our sins was inflicted on him, whereby our peace and reconciliation with God was made by him; for chastisement here does not design the chastisement of a father, and in love, such as the Lord chastises his people with; but an act of vindictive justice, and in wrath, taking vengeance on our sins, of our surety, whereby divine wrath is appeased, justice is satisfied, and peace is made: and with his stripes we are healed; or "by his stripe" (q), or "bruise": properly the black and blue mark of it, so called from the gathering and settling of the blood where the blow is given. Sin is a disease belonging to all men, a natural, hereditary, nauseous, and incurable one, but by the blood of Christ; forgiving sin is a healing of this disease; and this is to be had, and in no other way, than through the stripes and wounds, the blood and sacrifice, of the Son of God. Christ is a wonderful physician; he heals by taking the sicknesses of his people upon himself, by bearing their sins, and being wounded and bruised for them, and by his enduring blows, and suffering death itself for them. The Targum is, "when we obey his words, our sins will be forgiven us;'' but forgiveness is not through our obedience, but the blood of Christ.

4. HENRY, “The consequence of this to us is our peace and healing, Isa_53:5. [1.] Hereby we have peace: The chastisement of our peace was upon him; he, by submitting to these chastisements, slew the enmity, and settled an amity, between God and man; he made peace by the blood of his cross. Whereas by sin we had become odious to God's holiness and obnoxious to his justice, through Christ God is reconciled to us, and not only forgives our sins and saves us from ruin, but takes us into friendship and fellowship with himself, and thereby peace (that is, all good) comes unto us, Col_1:20. He is our peace, Eph_2:14. Christ was in pain that we might be at ease; he gave satisfaction to the justice of God that we might have satisfaction in our own minds, might be of good cheer, knowing that through him our sins are forgiven us. [2.] Hereby we have healing; for by his stripes we are healed. Sin is not only a crime, for which we were condemned to die and which Christ purchased for us the pardon of, but it is a disease, which tends directly to the death of our souls and which Christ provided for the cure of. By his stripes (that is, the sufferings he underwent) he purchased for us the Spirit and grace of God to mortify our corruptions, which are the distempers of our souls, and to put our souls in a good state of health, that they may be fit to serve God and prepared to enjoy him. And by the doctrine of Christ's cross, and the powerful arguments it furnishes us with against sin, the dominion of sin is broken in us and we are fortified against that which feeds the disease.

5. JAMISON. “wounded — a bodily wound; not mere mental sorrow; literally, “pierced”; minutely appropriate to Messiah, whose hands, feet, and side were pierced (Psa_22:16). The Margin, wrongly, from a Hebrew root, translates, “tormented.” for ... for — (Rom_4:25; 2Co_5:21; Heb_9:28; 1Pe_2:24; 1Pe_3:18) - the cause for which He suffered not His own, but our sins. bruised — crushing inward and outward suffering (see on Isa_53:10). chastisement — literally, the correction inflicted by a parent on children for their good (Heb_12:5-8, Heb_12:10, Heb_12:11). Not punishment strictly; for this can have place only where there is guilt, which He had not; but He took on Himself the chastisement whereby the peace (reconciliation with our Father; Rom_5:1; Eph_2:14, Eph_2:15, Eph_2:17) of the children of God was to be effected (Heb_2:14). upon him — as a burden; parallel to “hath borne” and “carried.” stripes — minutely prophetical of His being scourged (Mat_27:26; 1Pe_2:24). healed — spiritually (Psa_41:4; Jer_8:22).

6. K&D, “In Isa_53:5, ‫וְ הוּא‬, as contrasted with ‫וַ ֲאנַ ְחנוּ‬, continues the true state of the case as contrasted with their false judgment. “Whereas He was pierced for our sins, bruised for our iniquities: the punishment was laid upon Him for our peace; and through His stripes we were healed.” The question is, whether Isa_53:5 describes what He was during His life, or what He was in His death. The words decide in favour of the latter. For although chalal is applied to a person mortally wounded but not yet dead (Jer_51:52; Psa_69:27), and chalal to a heart wounded to death (Psa_109:22); the pure passives used here, which denote a calamity inflicted by violence from without, more especially mecholal, which is not the participle polal of chı̄l (made to twist one's self with pain), but the participle poal of chal (pierced, transfossus, the passive of

mecholel, Isa_51:9), and the substantive clauses, which express a fact that has become complete in all its circumstances, can hardly be understood in any other way than as denoting, that “the servant of God” floated before the mind of the speaker in all the sufferings of death, just as was the case with Zechariah in Zec_12:10. There were no stronger expressions to be found in the language, to denote a violent and painful death. As min, with the passive, does not answer to the Greek 4πό, but to "πό, the meaning is not that it was our sins and iniquities that had pierced Him through like swords, and crushed Him like heavy burdens, but that He was pierced and crushed on account of our sins and iniquities. It was not His own sins and iniquities, but ours, which He had taken upon Himself, that He might make atonement for them in our stead, that were the cause of His having to suffer so cruel and painful a death. The ultimate cause is not mentioned; but ‫לוֹמנוּ ָע ָליו‬ ֵ ‫מוּסר ְשׁ‬ ַ which follows points to it. His suffering was a musar, which is an indirect affirmation that it was God who had inflicted it upon Him, for who else could the yoser (meyasser) be? We have rendered musar “punishment;” and there was no other word in the language for this idea; for though ‫ נָ ָקם‬and ‫( ְš ֻק ָ€ה‬to which Hofmann refers) have indeed the idea of punishment associated with them, the former signifies Kκδίκησις, the latter Kπίσκεψις, whereas musar not only denotes παιδεία, as the chastisement of

love (Pro_3:11), but also as the infliction of punishment (= τιµωρία+κόλασις, Pro_7:22; Jer_30:14), just as David, when he prayed that God might not punish him in His anger and hot displeasure (Psa_6:2), could not find a more suitable expression for punishment, regarded as the execution of judgment, than ‫( יִ ַœר‬+ַ‫)הוֹכיח‬. ִ The word itself, which follows the form of musad (Isa_28:16), signifies primarily being chastised (from yasar = vasar, constringere, coercere), and included from the very outset the idea of practical chastisement, which then passed over into that of admonition in words, of warning by example, and of chastity as a moral quality. In the case before us, in which the reference is to a sufferer, and to a musar resting upon him, this can only mean actual chastisement. If the expression had been ‫מוּס ֵרנוּ ָע ָליו‬, ָ it would merely mean that God had caused Him, who had taken upon Himself our sins and iniquities and thus made Himself representatively or vicariously guilty, to endure the chastisement which those sins deserved. but it is ‫לוֹמנוּ‬ ֵ ‫מוּסר ְשׁ‬. ַ The connection of the words is the same as that of ‫‚וֹכ ַחת ַח_ִ ים‬ ַ in Pro_15:31. As the latter signifies “reproof leading to life,” so the former signifies “the chastisement which leads to our peace.” It is true that the suffix belongs to the one idea, that that has grown up through this combination of the words, like berı̄th shelomı̄, “my peacecovenant” (Isa_54:10); but what else could our “peace-chastisement” be, than the chastisement that brings us peace, or puts us into a state of salvation? This is the idea involved in Stier's rendering, “restoring chastisement,” and Hofmann's, “the chastisement wholesome for us.” The difference in the exposition simply lies in the view entertained of the musar, in which neither of these commentators will allow that there is any idea of a visitation of justice here. But according to our interpretation, the genitive ‫שׁלוֹמנו‬, which defines the musar so far as its object and results are concerned, clearly shows that this manifestation of the justice of God, this satisfaction procured by His holiness, had His love for its foundation and end. It was our peace, or, what is more in accordance with the full idea of the word, our general well-being, our blessedness, which these sufferings arrived at and secured (the synonyms of shalom are tobh and yeshu‛ah, Isa_52:7). In what follows, “and by His stripes (cha}bhurah = chabburah, Isa_1:6) we have been healed,” shalom is defined as a condition of salvation brought about by healing. “Venustissimum ‰ξύµωρον,” exclaims Vitringa here. He means the same as Jerome when he says, suo vulnere vulnera nostra curavit. The stripes and weals that were inflicted upon Him have made us sound and well (the lxx keeps the collective singular, and renders it very aptly τ8+µώλωπι+α9τοL; cf., 1Pe_2:24). We were sick unto death because of our sins; but He, the sinless one, took upon Himself a suffering unto death, which was, as it were, the concentration and essence of the woes that we had deserved; and this voluntary endurance, this submission to the justice of the Holy One, in accordance with the counsels of divine love, became the source of our healing.

7. CALVIN, “5.And he was wounded for our iniquities. He again repeats the cause of Christ’ great afflictions, in order to meet the scandal which might have arisen from it. The spectacle of the cross alienates many persons from Christ, when they consider what is presented to their eyes, and do not observe the object to be accomplished. But all offense is removed when we know that by his death our sins have been expiated, and salvation has been obtained for us.

The chastisement of our peace. Some think that this is called “ chastisement of peace,” on account of men being careless and stupefied amidst their afflictions, and therefore that it was necessary that Christ should suffer. Others view “” as relating to the consciences, that is, that Christ suffered, in order that we might have peaceful consciences; as Paul says that, “ justified by faith through Christ, we have peace with God.” (Rom_5:1) But I take it to denote simply reconciliation. Christ was the price of “ chastisement,” that is, of the chastisement which was due to us. Thus the wrath of God, which had been justly kindled against us, was appeased; and through the Mediator we have obtained “” by which we are reconciled. We ought to draw from this a universal doctrine, namely, that we are reconciled to God by free grace, because Christ hath paid the price of “ peace.” This is indeed acknowledged by the Papists; but then they limit this doctrine to original sin, as if after baptism there were no longer any room for reconciliation through free grace, but that we must give satisfaction by our merits and works. But the Prophet does not here treat of a single species of pardon, but extends this blessing to the whole course of life; and therefore it cannot be thus undervalued or limited to a particular time, without most heinous sacrilege. Hence also the frivolous distinction of the Papists, between the remission of punishment and the pardon of sin, is easily refuted. They affirm that punishment is not remitted to us, unless it be washed out by satisfactions. But the Prophet openly declares that the punishment of our sins was transferred to him. What, then, do the Papists intend but to be Christ’ equals and companions, and to lay claim to share with him in his authority? In his wound (or, in his medicine) we have healing. He again directs us to Christ, that we may betake ourselves to his wounds, provided that we wish to regain life. Here the Prophet draws a contrast between us and Christ; for in us nothing call be found but destruction and death; in Christ alone is life and salvation, he alone brought medicine to us, and even procures health by his weakness, and life by his death; for he alone hath pacified the Father, he alone hath reconciled us to him. Here we might bring forward many things about the blessed consequences of Christ’ sufferings, if we had not determined to expound rather than to preach; and therefore let us be satisfied with a plain exposition. Let every one, therefore, draw consolation from this passage, and let him apply the blessed result of this doctrine to his own use; for these words are spoken to all in general, and to individuals in particular.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1.BARNES, “All we, like sheep, have gone astray - This is the penitent confession of those for whom he suffered. It is an acknowledgment that they were going astray from God; and the reason why the Redeemer suffered was, that the race had wandered away, and that Yahweh had laid on him the iniquity of all. Calvin says, ‘In order that he might more deeply impress on the minds of people the benefits derived from the death of Christ, he shows how necessary was that healing of which he had just made mention. There is here an elegant antithesis. For in ourselves we were scattered; in Christ we are collected together; by nature we wander, and are driven headlong toward destruction; in Christ we find the way by which we are led to the gate of life.’ The condition of the race without a Redeemer is here elegantly compared to a flock without a shepherd, which wanders where it chooses, and which is exposed to all dangers. This image is not unfrequently used to denote estrangement from God 1Pe_2:25 : ‘For ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.’ Compare Num_27:17; 1Ki_22:17; Psa_119:176; Eze_34:5; Zec_10:2; Mat_9:36. Nothing could more strikingly represent the condition of human beings. They had wandered from God. They were following their own paths, and pursuing their own pleasures. They were without a protector, and they were exposed on every hand to danger. We have turned every one to his own way - We had all gone in the path which we chose. We were like sheep which have no shepherd, and which wander where they please, with no one to collect, defend, or guide them. One would wander in one direction, and another in another; and, of course, solitary and unprotected. they would be exposed to the more danger. So it was, and is, with man. The bond which should have united him to the Great Shepherd, the Creator, has been broken. We have become lonely wanderers, where each one pursues his own interest, forms his own plans, and seeks to gratify his own pleasures, regardless of the interest of the whole. If we had not sinned, there would have been a common bond to unite us to God, and to each other. But now we, as a race, have become dissocial, selfish, following our own pleasures, and each one living to gratify his Own passions. What a true and graphic description of man! How has it been illustrated in all the selfish schemes and purposes of the race! And how is it still illustrated every day in the plans and actions of mortals! And the Lord hath laid on him - Lowth renders this, ‘Yahweh hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.’ Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, Posuit Dominns in eo - ‘The Lord placed on him the iniquity of us all.’ The Septuagint renders it. Κύριος+παρέδωκεν+α9τν+τας+‘µαρτίαις+ µmν Kurios paredoken auton tais hamartiais hemon - ‘The Lord gave him for our sins.’ The Chaldee renders it, ‘From the presence of the Lord there was a willingness (‫ רעוא‬ra‛a}va') to forgive the sins of all of us on account of him.’ The Syriac has the same word as the Hebrew. The word used here (‫ פגע‬paga‛) means, properly, to strike upon or against, to impinge on anyone or anything, as the Greek πηγνύω pegnuo. It is used in a hostile sense, to denote an act of rushing upon a foe (1Sa_22:17; to kill, to slay Jdg_8:21; Jdg_15:12; 2Sa_1:15. It also means to light upon, to meet with anyone Gen_28:11; Gen_32:2. Hence, also to make peace with anyone; to strike a league or compact Isa_64:4. It is rendered, in our English version, ‘reacheth to’ Jos_19:11, Jos_19:22, Jos_19:26-27, Jos_19:34; ‘came,’ Jos_16:7; ‘met’ and ‘meet’ Gen_32:1; Exo_23:4; Num_35:19; Jos_2:16; Jos_18:10; Rth_2:22; 1Sa_10:5; Isa_64:5; Amo_5:19; ‘fail’ Jdg_8:21; 1Sa_22:17; 2Sa_1:15; 1Ki_2:29; ‘entreat’ Gen_18:8; Rth_1:16; Jer_15:11; ‘make intercession’ Isa_59:16; Isa_53:12; Jer_7:16; Jer_27:18; Jer_36:25; ‘he that comes between’ Job_36:22; and ‘occur’ 1Ki_5:4. The radical idea seems to be that of meeting, occurring, encountering; and it means here, as Lowth has rendered it, that they were caused to meet on him, or perhaps more properly, that Yahweh caused them to rush upon him, so as to overwhelm him in calamity, as one is overcome or overwhelmed in battle. The sense is, that he was not overcome by his own sins, but that he encountered ours, as if they had been made to rush to meet him and to prostrate him.

That is, he suffered in our stead; and whatever he was called to endure was in consequence of the fact that he had taken the place of sinners; and having taken their place, he met or encountered the sufferings which were the proper expressions of God’s displeasure, and sunk under the mighty burden of the world’s atonement. The iniquity of us all - (See the notes at Isa_53:5). This cannot mean that he became a sinner, or was guilty in the sight of God, for God always regarded him as an innocent being. It can only mean that he suffered as if he had been a sinner; or, that he suffered that which, if he had been a sinner, would have been a proper expression of the evil of sin. It may be remarked here: 1. That it is impossible to find stronger language to denote the fact that his sufferings were intended to make expiation for sin. Of what martyr could it be said that Yahweh had caused to meet on him the sins of the world? 2. This language is that which naturally expresses the idea that he suffered for all people. It is universal in its nature, and naturally conveys the idea that there was no limitation in respect to the number of those for whom he died.

2. CLARKE, “The Iniquity of us all - For ‫ עון‬avon, “iniquity,” the ancient interpreters read ‫ עונות‬avonoth, “iniquities,” plural; and so the Vulgate in MS. Blanchini. And the Lord hath ‫בו‬+‫הפגיע‬ hiphgia+bo, caused to meet in him the iniquities of us all. He was the subject on which all the rays collected on the focal point fell. These fiery rays, which should have fallen on all mankind, diverged from Divine justice to the east, west, north, and south, were deflected from them, and converged in him. So the Lord hath caused to meet in him the punishment due to the iniquities of All.

3. GILL, “All we like sheep have gone astray,.... Here the prophet represents all the elect of God, whether Jews or Gentiles; whom he compares to "sheep", not for their good qualities, but for their foolishness and stupidity; and particularly for their being subject to go astray from the shepherd, and the fold, and from their good pastures, and who never return of themselves, until they are looked up, and brought back by the shepherd, or owner of them; so the people of God, in a state of nature, are like the silly sheep, they go astray from God, are alienated from the life of him, deviate from the rule of his word, err from the right way, and go into crooked paths, which lead to destruction; and never return of themselves, of their own will, and by their own power, until they are returned, by powerful and efficacious grace, unto the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls; see 1Pe_2:25 where the apostle has a manifest respect to this passage: we have turned everyone to his own way; and that is an evil one, a dark and slippery one, a crooked one, the end of it is ruin; yet this is a way of a man's own choosing and approving, and in which he delights; and it may not only intend the way of wickedness in general, common to all men in a state of nature, but a particular way of sinning, peculiar to each; some are addicted to one sin, and some to another, and have their own way of committing the same sin; men turn their faces from God, and their backs upon him, and look to their own way, and set their faces towards it, and their hearts on it; and which seems right and pleasing to them, yet the end of it are the ways of death; and so bent are men on these ways, though so destructive, that nothing

but omnipotent grace can turn them out of them, and to the Lord; and which is done in consequence of what follows: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all; that is, God the Father, against whom we have sinned, from whom we have turned, and whose justice must be satisfied; he has laid on Christ, his own Son, the sins of all his elect ones; which are as it were collected together, and made one bundle and burden of, and therefore expressed in the singular number, "iniquity", and laid on Christ, and were bore by him, even all the sins of all God's elect; a heavy burden this! which none but the mighty God could bear; this was typified by laying of hands, and laying of sins upon the sacrifice, and putting the iniquities of Israel upon the head of the scapegoat, by whom they were bore, and carried away. The words may be rendered, "he made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all" (r); the elect of God, as they live in every part of the world, their sins are represented as coming from all quarters, east, west, north, and south; and as meeting in Christ, as they did, when he suffered as their representative on the cross: or "he made to rush, or fall upon him the iniquity of us all" (s); our sins, like a large and mighty army, beset him around, and fell upon him in a hostile manner, and were the cause of his death; by which means the law and justice of God had full satisfaction, and our recovery from ruin and destruction is procured, which otherwise must have been the consequence of turning to our own ways; so the ancient Jews understood this of the Messiah. R. Cahana (t) on these words, "binding his ass's colt to the choice vine", Gen_49:11 says, "as the ass bears burdens, and the garments of travellers, so the King Messiah will bear upon him the sins of the whole world; as it is said, "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all",'' Isa_53:6.

4. HENRY, “It is certain that we are all guilty before God. We have all sinned, and have come short of the glory of God (Isa_53:6): All we like sheep have gone astray, one as well as another. The whole race of mankind lies under the stain of original corruption, and every particular person stands charged with many actual transgressions. We have all gone astray from God our rightful owner, alienated ourselves from him, from the ends he designed us to move towards and the way he appointed us to move in. We have gone astray like sheep, which are apt to wander, and are unapt, when they have gone astray, to find the way home again. That is our true character; we are bent to backslide from God, but altogether unable of ourselves to return to him. This is mentioned not only as our infelicity (that we go astray from the green pastures and expose ourselves to the beasts of prey), but as our iniquity. We affront God in going astray from him, for we turn aside every one to his own way, and thereby set up ourselves, and our own will, in competition with God and his will, which is the malignity of sin. Instead of walking obediently in God's way, we have turned wilfully and stubbornly to our own way, the way of our own heart, the way that our own corrupt appetites and passions lead us to. We have set up for ourselves, to be our own masters, our own carvers, to do what we will and have what we will. Some think it intimates our own evil way, in distinction from the evil way of others. Sinners have their own iniquity, their beloved sin, which does most easily beset them, their own evil way, that they are particularly fond of and bless themselves in. (2.) Our sins are our sorrows and our griefs (Isa_53:4), or, as it may be read, our sicknesses and our wounds: the Septuagint reads it, our sins; and so the apostle, 1Pe_2:24. Our original corruptions are the sickness and disease of the soul, an habitual indisposition; our actual transgressions are the wounds of the soul, which put conscience to pain, if it be not seared and senseless. Or our sins are called our griefs and sorrows because all our griefs and sorrows are

owing to our sins and our sins deserve all our griefs and sorrows, even those that are most extreme and everlasting. (3.) Our Lord Jesus was appointed and did undertake to make satisfaction for our sins and so to save us from the penal consequences of them. [1.] He was appointed to do it, by the will of his Father; for the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. God chose him to be the Saviour of poor sinners and would have him to save them in this way, by bearing their sins and the punishment of them; not the idem - the same that we should have suffered, but the tantundem that which was more than equivalent for the maintaining of the honour of the holiness and justice of God in the government of the world. Observe here, First, In what way we are saved from the ruin to which by sin we had become liable - by laying our sins on Christ, as the sins of the offerer were laid upon the sacrifice and those of all Israel upon the head of the scape-goat. Our sins were made to meet upon him (so the margin reads it); the sins of all that he was to save, from every place and every age, met upon him, and he was met with for them. They were made to fall upon him (so some read it) as those rushed upon him that came with swords and staves to take him. The laying of our sins upon Christ implies the taking of them off from us; we shall not fall under the curse of the law if we submit to the grace of the gospel. They were laid upon Christ when he was made sin (that is, a sin-offering) for us, and redeemed us from the curse of the law by being made a curse for us; thus he put himself into a capacity to make those easy that come to him heavily laden under the burden of sin. See Psa_40:6-12. Secondly, By whom this was appointed. It was the Lord that laid our iniquities on Christ; he contrived this way of reconciliation and salvation, and he accepted of the vicarious satisfaction Christ was to make. Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. None but God had power to lay our sins upon Christ, both because the sin was committed against him and to him the satisfaction was to be made, and because Christ, on whom the iniquity was to be laid, was his own Son, the Son of his love, and his holy child Jesus, who himself knew no sin. Thirdly, For whom this atonement was to be made. It was the iniquity of us all that was laid on Christ; for in Christ there is a sufficiency of merit for the salvation of all, and a serious offer made of that salvation to all, which excludes none that do not exclude themselves. It intimates that this is the one only way of salvation. All that are justified are justified by having their sins laid on Jesus Christ, and, though they were ever so many, he is able to bear the weight of them all. [2.] He undertook to do it. God laid upon him our iniquity; but did he consent to it? Yes, he did; for some think that the true reading of the next words (Isa_53:7) is, It was exacted, and he answered; divine justice demanded satisfaction for our sins, and he engaged to make the satisfaction. He became our surety, not as originally bound with us, but as bail to the action: “Upon me be the curse, my Father.” And therefore, when he was seized, he stipulated with those into whose hands he surrendered himself that that should be his disciples' discharge: If you seek me, let these go their way, Joh_18:8. By his own voluntary undertaking he made himself responsible for our debt, and it is well for us that he was responsible. Thus he restored that which he took not away. (4.) Having undertaken our debt, he underwent the penalty. Solomon says: He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it. Christ, being surety for us, did smart for it. [1.] He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, Isa_53:4. He not only submitted to the common infirmities of human nature, and the common calamities of human life, which sin had introduced, but he underwent the extremities of grief, when he said, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful. He made the sorrows of this present time heavy to himself, that he might make them light and easy for us. Sin is the wormwood and the fall in the affliction and the misery. Christ bore our sins, and so bore our griefs, bore them off us, that we should never be pressed above measure. This is quoted (Mat_8:17) with application to the compassion Christ had for the sick that came to him to be cured and the power he put forth to cure them. [2.] He did this by suffering for our sins (Isa_53:5): He was wounded for our transgressions, to make atonement for them and to purchase for us the pardon of them. Our sins were the thorns in his head, the nails in his hands

and feet, the spear in his side. Wounds and bruises were the consequences of sin, what we deserved and what we had brought upon ourselves, Isa_1:6. That these wounds and bruises, though they are painful, may not be mortal, Christ was wounded for our transgressions, was tormented or pained (the word is used for the pains of a woman in travail) for our revolts and rebellions. He was bruised, or crushed, for our iniquities; they were the procuring cause of his death. To the same purport is Isa_53:8, for the transgression of my people was he smitten, the stroke was upon him that should have been upon us; and so some read it, He was cut off for the iniquity of my people, unto whom the stroke belonged, or was due. He was delivered to death for our offences, Rom_4:25. Hence it is said to be according to the scriptures, according to this scripture, that Christ died for our sins, 1Co_15:3. Some read this, by the transgressions of my people; that is, by the wicked hands of the Jews, who were, in profession, God's people, he was stricken, was crucified and slain, Act_2:23. But, doubtless, we are to take it in the former sense, which is abundantly confirmed by the angel's prediction of the Messiah's undertaking, solemnly delivered to Daniel, that he shall finish transgression, make an end of sin, and make reconciliation for iniquity, Dan_9:24.

5. JAMISON. “Penitent confession of believers and of Israel in the last days (Zec_12:10). sheep ... astray — (Psa_119:176; 1Pe_2:25). The antithesis is, “In ourselves we were scattered; in Christ we are collected together; by nature we wander, driven headlong to destruction; in Christ we find the way to the gate of life” [Calvin]. True, also, literally of Israel before its coming restoration (Eze_34:5, Eze_34:6; Zec_10:2, Zec_10:6; compare with Eze_34:23, Eze_34:24; Jer_23:4, Jer_23:5; also Mat_9:36). laid — “hath made to light on Him” [Lowth]. Rather, “hath made to rush upon Him” [Maurer]. the iniquity — that is, its penalty; or rather, as in 2Co_5:21; He was not merely a sin offering (which would destroy the antithesis to “righteousness”), but “sin for us”; sin itself vicariously; the representative of the aggregate sin of all mankind; not sins in the plural, for the “sin” of the world is one (Rom_5:16, Rom_5:17); thus we are made not merely righteous, but righteousness, even “the righteousness of God.” The innocent was punished as if guilty, that the guilty might be rewarded as if innocent. This verse could be said of no mere martyr.

6. K&D, “Thus does the whole body of the restored Israel confess with penitence, that it has so long mistaken Him whom Jehovah, as is now distinctly affirmed, had made a curse for their good, when they had gone astray to their own ruin. “All we like sheep went astray; we had turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.” It is the state of exile, upon which the penitent Israel is here looking back; but exile as being, in the prophet's view, the final state of punishment before the final deliverance. Israel in its exile resembled a scattered flock without a shepherd; it had lost the way of Jehovah (Isa_63:17), and every one had turned to his own way, in utter selfishness and estrangement from God (Isa_56:11). But whereas Israel thus heaped up guilt upon guilt, the Servant of Jehovah was He upon whom Jehovah Himself caused the punishment of their guilt to fall, that He might make atonement for it through His own suffering. Many of the more modern expositors endeavour to set aside the paena vicaria here, by giving to +ַ‫ ִה ְפִ יע‬a meaning which it never has. Thus Stier renders it, “Jehovah caused the iniquity of all to strike or break upon Him.” Others, again, give a

meaning to the statement which is directly at variance with the words themselves. Thus Hahn renders it: Jehovah took the guilt of the whole into His service, causing Him to die a violent death through their crime. Hofmann very properly rejects both explanations, and holds fast to the fact that d +ַ‫ה ְפִ יע‬, ִ regarded as a causative of +ְd ‫šגַ ע‬, ָ signifies “to cause anything to strike or fall upon a person,” which is the rendering adopted by Symmachus: κύριος+καταντήσαι+Kποίησεν+εrς+α 9τν+τŸν+"νοµίαν+πάντων+µmν. “Just as the blood of a murdered man comes upon the murderer, when the bloody deed committed comes back upon him in the form of blood-guiltiness inflicting vengeance; so does sin come upon, overtake (Psa_40:13), or meet with the sinner. It went forth from him as his own act; it returns with destructive effect, as a fact by which he is condemned. But in this case God does not suffer those who have sinned to be overtaken by the sin they have committed; but it falls upon His servant, the righteous One.” These are Hofmann's words. But if the sin turns back upon the sinner in the shape of punishment, why should the sin of all men, which the Servant of God has taken upon Himself as His own, overtake Him in the form of an evil, which, even it if be a punishment, is not punishment inflicted upon Him? For this is just the characteristic of Hofmann's doctrine of the atonement, that it altogether eliminates from the atoning work the reconciliation of the purposes of love with the demands of righteousness. Now it is indeed perfectly true, that the Servant of God cannot become the object of punishment, either as a servant of God or as an atoning Saviour; for as servant of God He is the beloved of God, and as atoning Saviour He undertakes a work which is well pleasing to God, and ordained in God's eternal counsel. So that the wrath which pours out upon Him is not meant for Him as the righteous One who voluntarily offers up Himself but indirectly it relates to Him, so far as He has vicariously identified Himself with sinners, who are deserving of wrath. How could He have made expiation for sin, if He had simply subjected Himself to its cosmical effects, and not directly subjected Himself to that wrath which is the invariable divine correlative of human sin? And what other reason could there be for God's not rescuing Him from this the bitterest cup of death, than the ethical impossibility of acknowledging the atonement as really made, without having left the representative of the guilty, who had presented Himself to Him as though guilty Himself, to taste of the punishment which they had deserved? It is true that vicarious expiation and paena vicaria are not coincident ideas. The punishment is but one element in the expiation, and it derives a peculiar character from the fact that one innocent person voluntarily submits to it in His own person. It does not stand in a thoroughly external relation of identity to that deserved by the many who are guilty; but the latter cannot be set aside without the atoning individual enduring an intensive equivalent to it, and that in such a manner, that this endurance is no less a self-cancelling of wrath on the part of God, than an absorption of wrath on the part of the Mediator; and in this central point of the atoning work, the voluntarily forgiving love of God and the voluntarily self-sacrificing love of the Mediator meet together, like hands stretched out grasp one another from the midst of a dark cloud. Hermann Schultz also maintains that the suffering, which was the consequence of sin and therefore punishment to the guilty, is borne by the Redeemer as suffering, without being punishment. But in this way the true mystery is wiped out of the heart of the atoning work; and this explanation is also at variance with the expression “the chastisement of our peace” in Isa_53:5, and the equally distinct statement in Isa_53:6, “He hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” It was the sin of all Israel, as the palindromically repeated kullanu emphatically declares, which pressed upon Him with such force when His atoning work was about to be decided, but ‫ ָעוֹן‬is used to denote not only the transgression itself, but also the guilt incurred thereby, and the punishment to which it gives rise. All this great multitude of sins, and mass of guilt, and weight of punishment, came upon the Servant of Jehovah according to the appointment of the God of salvation, who is gracious in holiness. The third turn ends here. It was our sins that He bore, and for our salvation that God caused Him to suffer on our account.

7. CALVIN, “6.We all, like sheep, have gone astray. In order to impress more deeply on our hearts the benefit of the death of Christ, he shows how necessary is that healing which he formerly mentioned. If we do not perceive our wretchedness and poverty, we shall never know how desirable is that remedy which Christ has brought to us, or approach him with due ardor of affection. As soon as we know that we are ruined, then, aware of our wretchedness, we eagerly run to avail ourselves of the remedy, which otherwise would be held by us in no estimation. In order, therefore, that Christ may be appreciated by us, let every one consider and examine himself, so as to acknowledge that he is ruined till he is redeemed by Christ. We see that here none are excepted, for the Prophet includes “” The whole human race would have perished, if Christ had not brought relief. He does not even except the Jews, whose hearts were puffed up with a false opinion of their own superiority, but condemns them indiscriminately, along with others, to destruction. By comparing them to sheep, he intends not to extenuate their guilt, as if little blame attached to them, but to state plainly that it belongs to Christ to gather from their wanderings those who resembled brute beasts. Every one hath turned to his own way. By adding the term every one, he descends from a universal statement, in which he included all, to a special statement, that every individual may consider in his own mind if it be so; for a general statement produces less effect upon us than to know that it belongs to each of us in particular. Let “ one,” therefore, arouse his conscience, and present himself before the judgment of God, that he may confess his wretchedness. Moreover, what is the nature of this “ astray” the Prophet states more plainly. It is, that every one hath followed the way which he had chosen for himself, that is, hath determined to live according to his own fancy; by which he means that there is only one way of living uprightly, and if any one “ aside” from it, he can experience nothing but “ astray.” He does not speak of works only, but of nature itself, which always leads us astray; for, if we could by natural instinct or by our own wisdom, bring ourselves back into the path, or guard ourselves against going astray, Christ would not be needed by us. Thus, in ourselves we all are undone unless Christ (Joh_8:36) sets us free; and the more we rely on our wisdom or industry, the more dreadfully and the more speedily do we draw down destruction on ourselves. And so the Prophet shows what we are before we are regenerated by Christ; for all are involved in the same condemnation. “ is none righteous, none that understandeth, none that seeketh God. All have turned aside, and have become unprofitable. There is none that doeth good; no, not one.” (Psa_14:3) All this is more fully explained by Paul. (Rom_3:10) And Jehovah hath laid upon him. Here we have a beautiful contrast. In ourselves we are scattered; in Christ we are gathered together. By nature we go astray, and are driven headlong to destruction; in Christ we find the course by which we are conducted to the harbor of salvation. Our sins are a heavy load; but they are laid on Christ, by whom we are freed from the load. Thus, when we were ruined, and, being estranged from God, were hastening to hell, Christ took upon him the filthiness of our iniquities, in order to rescue us from everlasting destruction. This must refer exclusively to guilt and punishment; for he was free from sin. (Heb_4:15;1Pe_2:22) Let every one, therefore, diligently consider his own iniquities, that he may have a true relish of that grace, and may obtain the benefit of the death of Christ.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

1.BARNES, “He was oppressed - (‫ נגשׂ‬niggas'). Lowth renders this, ‘It was exacted.’ Hengstenberg, ‘He was abased.’ Jerome (the Vulgate), ‘He was offered because he was willing.’ The Septuagint ‘He, on account of his affliction, opened not his mouth,’ implying that his silence arose from the extremity of his sorrows. The Chaldee renders it, ‘He prayed, and he was heard, and before he opened his mouth he was accepted.’ The Syriac, ‘He came and humbled himself, neither did he open his mouth.’ Kimchi supposes that it means, ‘it was exacted;’ and that it refers to the fact that taxes were demanded of the exiles, when they were in a foreign land. The word used here (‫ נגשׂ‬nagas') properly means, “to drive,” to impel, to urge; and then to urge a debtor, to exact payment; or to exact tribute, a ransom, etc. (see Deu_15:2-3; 2Ki_23:35.) Compare Job_3:18; Zec_9:8; Zec_10:4, where one form of the word is rendered ‘oppressor;’ Job_39:7, the ‘driver;’ Exo_5:6, ‘taskmasters;’ Dan_11:20, ‘a raiser of taxes.’ The idea is that of urgency, oppression, vexation, of being hard pressed, and ill treated. It does not refer here necessarily to what was exacted by God, or to sufferings inflicted by him - though it may include those - but it refers to all his oppressions, and the severity of his sufferings from all quarters. He was urged impelled, oppressed, and yet he was patient as a lamb. And he was afflicted - Jahn and Steudel propose to render this, ‘He suffered himself to be afflicted.’ Hengstenberg renders it, ‘He suffered patiently, and opened not his mouth.’ Lowth, ‘He was made answerable; and he opened not his mouth.’ According to this, the idea is, that he had voluntarily taken upon himself the sins of people, and that having done so, he was held answerable as a surety. But it is doubtful whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. According to Jerome, the idea is that he voluntarily submitted, and that this was the cause of his sufferings. Hensler renders it, ‘God demands the debt, and he the great and righteous one suffers.’ It is probable, however, that our translation has retained the correct sense. The word ‫ענה‬

‛anah, in Niphil, means to be afflicted, to suffer, be oppressed or depressed Psa_119:107, and the idea here is, probably, that he was greatly distressed and afflicted. He was subjected to pains and sorrows which were hard to be borne, and which are usually accompanied with expressions of impatience and lamentation. The fact that he did not open his mouth in complaint was therefore the more remarkable, and made the merit of his sufferings the greater. Yet he opened not his mouth - This means that he was perfectly quiet, meek, submissive, patient, He did not open his mouth to complain of God on account of the great sorrows which he had appointed to him; nor to God on account of his being ill-treated by man. He did not use the language of reviling when he was reviled, nor return upon people the evils which they were inflicting on him (compare Psa_39:9). How strikingly and literally was this fulfilled in the life of the Lord Jesus! It would seem almost as if it had been written after he lived, and was history rather than prophecy. In no other instance was there ever so striking an example of perfect patience; no other person ever so entirely accorded with the description of the prophet. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter - This does not mean that he was led to the slaughter as a lamb is, but that as a lamb which is led to be killed is patient and silent, so was he. He made no resistance. He uttered no complaint. He suffered himself to be led quietly along to be put to death. What a striking and beautiful description! How tender and how true! We can almost see here the meek and patient Redeemer led along without resistance; and amidst the clamor of the multitude that were assembled with various feelings to conduct him to death, himself perfectly silent and composed. With all power at his disposal, yet as quiet and gentle as though he had no power; and with a perfect consciousness that he was going to die, as calm and as gentle as though he were ignorant of the design for which they were leading him forth. This image occurs also in Jeremiah, Jer_11:19, ‘But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter.’ As a sheep - As a sheep submits quietly to the operation of shearing. Compare 1Pe_2:23, ‘Who when he was reviled, reviled not again.’ Jesus never opened his mouth to revile or complain. It was opened only to bless those that cursed him, and to pray for his enemies and murderers.

2. GILL, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,.... He was injuriously treated by the Jews; they used him very ill, and handled him very roughly; he was oppressed and afflicted, both in body and mind, with their blows, and with their reproaches; he was afflicted, indeed, both by God and men: or rather it may be rendered, "it was exacted", required, and demanded, "and he answered" (u), or "was afflicted"; justice finding the sins of men on him, laid on him by imputation, and voluntarily received by him, as in the preceding verse, demanded satisfaction of him; and he being the surety of his people, was responsible for them, and did answer, and gave the satisfaction demanded: the debt they owed was required, the payment of it was called for, and he accordingly answered, and paid the whole, every farthing, and cancelled the bond; the punishment of the sins of his people was exacted of him, and he submitted to bear it, and did bear it in his own body on the tree; this clearly expresses the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction: yet he opened not his mouth; against the oppressor that did him the injury, nor murmured at the affliction that was heavy upon him: or, "and he opened not his mouth"; against the justice of God, and the demand that was made upon him, as the surety of his people; he owned the obligation he had laid himself under; he paid the debt, and bore the punishment without any

dispute or hesitation: "he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb"; or, "as a sheep to the slaughter, and as an ewe before her shearer" (w); these figurative phrases are expressive, not only of the harmlessness and innocence of Christ, as considered in himself, but of his meekness and patience in suffering, and of his readiness and willingness to be sacrificed in the room and stead of his people; he went to the cross without any reluctance, which; when there was any in the sacrifice, it was reckoned a bad omen among the Heathens, yea, such were not admitted to be offered (x); but Christ went as willingly to be sacrificed as a lamb goes to the slaughter house, and was as silent under his sufferings as a sheep while under the hands of its shearers; he was willing to be stripped of all he had, as a shorn sheep, and to be slaughtered and sacrificed as a lamb, for the sins of his people: so he opened not his mouth: not against his enemies, by way of threatening or complaint; nor even in his own defence; nor against the justice of God, as bearing hard upon him, not sparing him, but demanding and having full satisfaction; nor against his people and their sins, for whom he suffered; see 1Pe_2:23.

3. HENRY, “He was wronged and abused (Isa_53:7): He was oppressed, injuriously treated and hardly dealt with. That was laid to his charge which he was perfectly innocent of, that laid upon him which he did not deserve, and in both he was oppressed and injured. He was afflicted both in mind and body; being oppressed, he laid it to heart, and, though, he was patient, was not stupid under it, but mingled his tears with those of the oppressed, that have no comforter, because on the side of the oppressors there is power, Ecc_4:1. Oppression is a sore affliction; it has made many a wise man mad (Ecc_7:7); but our Lord Jesus, though, when he was oppressed, he was afflicted, kept possession of his own soul. 5. he was judged and imprisoned, as is implied in his being taken from prison and judgment, Isa_53:8. God having made him sin for us, he was proceeded against as a malefactor; he was apprehended and taken into custody, and made a prisoner; he was judge, accused, tried, and condemned, according to the usual forms of law: God filed a process against him, judged him in pursuance of that process, and confined him in the prison of the grave, at the door of which a stone was rolled and sealed. 6. He was cut off by an untimely death from the land of the living, though he lived a most useful life, did so many good works, and they were all such that one would be apt to think it was for some of them that they stoned him. He was stricken to death, to the grave which he made with the wicked (for he was crucified between two thieves, as if he had been the worst of the three) and yet with the rich, for he was buried in a sepulchre that belonged to Joseph, an honourable counsellor. Though he died with the wicked, and according to the common course of dealing with criminals should have been buried with them in the place where he was crucified, yet God here foretold, and Providence so ordered it, that he should make his grave with the innocent, with the rich, as a mark of distinction put between him and those that really deserved to die, even in his sufferings. II. A full account of the meaning of his sufferings. It was a very great mystery that so excellent a person should suffer such hard things; and it is natural to ask with amazement, “How came it about? What evil had he done?” His enemies indeed looked upon him as suffering justly for his crimes; and, though they could lay nothing to his charge, they esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, Isa_53:4. Because they hated him, and persecuted him, they thought that God did, that he was his enemy and fought against him; and therefore they were the more enraged against him, saying, God has forsaken him; persecute and take him, Psa_71:11. Those that are justly smitten are smitten of God, for by him princes decree justice; and so they looked upon him to be smitten, justly put to death as a blasphemer, a deceiver, and an enemy to Caesar. Those that saw him hanging on the cross enquired not into the merits of his cause, but took it for granted that he was guilty of every thing laid to his charge and that therefore vengeance suffered him not to live. Thus Job's friends esteemed him smitten of God, because there was something

uncommon in his sufferings. It is true he was smitten of God, Isa_53:10 (or, as some read it, he was God's smitten and afflicted, the Son of God, though smitten and afflicted), but not in the sense in which they meant it; for, though he suffered all these things, 1. He never did any thing in the least to deserve this hard usage. Whereas he was charged with perverting the nation, and sowing sedition, it was utterly false; he had done no violence, but went about doing good. And, whereas he was called that deceiver, he never deserved that character; for there was no deceit in his mouth (Isa_53:9), to which the apostle refers, 1Pe_2:22. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. He never offended either in word or deed, nor could any of his enemies take up that challenge of his, Which of you convinceth me of sin? The judge that condemned owned he found no fault in him, and the centurion that executed him professed that certainly he was a righteous man. 2. He conducted himself under his sufferings so as to make it appear that he did not suffer as an evil-doer; for, though he was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth (Isa_53:7), no, not so much as to plead his own innocency, but freely offered himself to suffer and die for us, and objected nothing against it. This takes away the scandal of the cross, that he voluntarily submitted to it, for great and holy ends. By his wisdom he could have evaded the sentence, and by his power have resisted the execution; but thus it was written, and thus it behoved him to suffer. This commandment he received from his Father, and therefore he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, without any difficulty or reluctance (he is the Lamb of God); and as a sheep is dumb before the shearers, nay, before the butchers, so he opened not his mouth, which denotes not only his exemplary patience under affliction (Psa_39:9), and his meekness under reproach (Psa_38:13), but his cheerful compliance with his Father's will. Not my will, but thine be done. Lo, I come. By this will we are sanctified, his making his own soul, his own life, an offering for our sin. 3. It was for our good, and in our stead, that Jesus Christ suffered. This is asserted here plainly and fully, and in a very great variety of emphatical expressions.

4. JAMISON. “oppressed — Lowth translates, “It was exacted, and He was made answerable.” The verb means, “to have payment of a debt sternly exacted” (Deu_15:2, Deu_15:3), and so to be oppressed in general; the exaction of the full penalty for our sins in His sufferings is probably alluded to. and ... afflicted — or, and yet He suffered, or bore Himself patiently, etc. [Hengstenberg and Maurer]. Lowth’s translation, “He was made answerable,” is hardly admitted by the Hebrew. opened not ... mouth — Jer_11:19; and David in Psa_38:13, Psa_38:14; Psa_39:9, prefiguring Messiah (Mat_26:63; Mat_27:12, Mat_27:14; 1Pe_2:23).

5. K&D, “The fourth turn describes how He suffered and died and was buried. “He was ill treated; whilst He suffered willingly, and opened not His mouth, like the sheep that is led to the slaughter-bench, and like a lamb that is dumb before its shearers, and opened not His mouth.” The third pers. niphal stands first in a passive sense: He has been hard pressed (1Sa_13:6): He is driven, or hunted (1Sa_14:24), treated tyrannically and unsparingly; in a word, plagued (vexatus; compare the niphal in a reciprocal sense in Isa_3:5, and according to the reading ‫ נגשׂ‬in Isa_29:13 in a reflective sense, to torment one's self). Hitzig renders the next clause, “and although tormented, He opened not His mouth.” But although an explanatory subordinate clause may precede the principal clause which it more fully explains, not example can be found

of such a clause with (a retrospective) ‫ וְ הוּא‬explaining what follows; for in Job_2:8 the circumstantial clause, “sitting down among the ashes,” belongs to the principal fact which stands before. And so here, where ‫( נַ ַענָ ה‬from which comes the participle ‫נַ ֲענֶ ה‬, usually met with in circumstantial clauses) has not a passive, but a reflective meaning, as in Exo_10:3 : “He was ill treated, whilst He bowed Himself (= suffered voluntarily), and opened not His mouth” (the regular leap from the participle to the finite). The voluntary endurance is then explained by the simile “like a sheep that is led to the slaughter” (an attributive clause, like Jer_11:19); and the submissive quiet bearing, by the simile “like a lamb that is dumb before its shearers.” The commentators regard ‫ נֶ ֲא ָל ָמה‬as a participle; but this would have the tone upon the last syllable (see Isa_1:21, Isa_1:26; Nah_3:11; cf., Comm. on Job, at Job_20:27, note). The tone shows it to be the pausal form for ‫נֶ ֲא ְלרמה‬, and so we have rendered it; and, indeed, as the interchange of the perfect with the future in the attributive clause must be intentional, not quae obmutescit, but obmutuit. The following words, ‫וְ לּא יִ ְפ ַ‚ח šיִ ו‬, do not form part of the simile, which would require

tiphtach, for nothing but absolute necessity would warrant us in assuming that it points back beyond ‫ ָר ֵחל‬to ‫שׂה‬, ֶ as Rashi and others suppose. The palindromical repetition also favours the unity of the subject with that of the previous ‫ יפתח‬and the correctness of the delicate accentuation, with which the rendering in the lxx and Act_8:32 coincides. All the references in the New Testament to the Lamb of God (with which the corresponding allusions to the passover are interwoven) spring from this passage in the book of Isaiah.

6. CALVIN, “7.He was punished. Here the Prophet applauds the obedience of Christ in suffering death; for if his death had not been voluntary, he would not have been regarded as having satisfied for our disobedience. “ by one man’ disobedience,” says Paul, “ became sinners, so by one man’ obedience many were made righteous. (Rom_5:19) And elsewhere, “ became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phi_2:8) This was the reason of his silence at the judgment of Pilate, though he had a just defense to offer; for, having become answerable for our guilt, he wished to submit silently to the sentence, that we might loudly glory in the righteousness of faith obtained through free grace. As a lamb shall he be led to the slaughter. We are here exhorted to patience and meekness, that, following the example of Christ, we may be ready to endure reproaches and cruel assaults, distress and torture. In this sense Peter quotes this passage, showing that we ought to become like Christ our Head, that we may imitate his patience and submissiveness. (1Pe_2:23) In the word lamb there is probably an allusion to the sacrifices under the Law; and in this sense he is elsewhere called “ Lamb of God.” (Joh_1:29)

8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.

Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]

1.BARNES, “He was taken from prison - Margin, ‘Away by distress and judgment.’ The general idea in this verse is, that the sufferings which he endured for his people were terminated by his being, after some form of trial, cut off out of the land of the living. Lowth renders this, ‘By an oppressive judgment he was taken off.’ Noyes, ‘By oppression and punishment he was taken away.’ The Septuagint renders it, ‘In his humiliation (Kν+τq+ταπεινώσει en te tapeinosei), his judgment (+κρίσις+α9το  he krisis autou), (his legal trial. Thomson), was taken away;’ and this translation was followed by Philip when he explained the passage to the eunuch of Ethiopia Act_8:33. The eunuch, a native of Ethiopia, where the Septuagint was commonly used, was reading this portion of Isaiah in that version, and the version was sufficiently accurate to express the general sense of the passage, though it is by no means a literal translation. The Chaldee renders this verse, ‘From infirmities and retribution he shall collect our captivity, and the wonders which shall be done for us in his days who can declare? Because he shall remove the dominion of the people from the land of Israel; the sins which my people have sinned shall come even unto them.’ The Hebrew word which is here used (‫‛ עצר‬otser, from ‫‛ עצר‬a

tsar, “to shut up, to close,” means properly “a shutting up,” or “closure”; and then constraint, oppression, or vexation. In Psa_107:39, it means violent restraint, or oppression. It does not mean prison in the sense in which that word is now used. It refers rather to restraint, and detention; and would be better translated by confinement, or by violent oppressions. The Lord Jesus, moreover, was not confined in prison. He was bound, and placed under a guard, and was thus secured. But neither the word used here, nor the account in the New Testament, leads us to suppose that in fact he was incarcerated. There is a strict and entire conformity between the statement here, and the facts as they occurred on the trial of the Redeemer (see Joh_18:24; compare the notes at Act_8:33). And from judgment - From a judicial decision; or by a judicial sentence. This statement is made in order to make the account of his sufferings more definite. He did not merely suffer affliction; he was not only a man of sorrows in general; he did not suffer in a tumult, or by the excitement of a mob: but he suffered under a form of law, and a sentence was passed in his case (compare Jer_1:16; 2Ki_25:6), and in accordance with that he was led forth to death. According to Hengstenberg, the two words here ‘by oppression,’ and ‘by judicial sentence,’ are to be taken together as a hendiadys, meaning an oppressive, unrighteous proceeding. So Lowth understands it. It seems to me, however, that they are rather to be taken as denoting separate things - the detention or confinement preliminary to the trial, and the sentence consequent upon the mock trial. And who shall declare his generation? - The word rendered ‘declare’ means to relate, or announce. ‘Who can give a correct statement in regard to it’ - implying either that there was

some want of willingness or ability to do it. This phrase has been very variously interpreted; and it is by no means easy to fix its exact meaning. Some have supposed that it refers to the fact that when a prisoner was about to be led forth to death, a crier made proclamation calling on anyone to come forward and assert his innocence, and declare his manner of life. But there is not sufficient proof that this was done among the Jews, and there is no evidence that it was done in the case of the Lord Jesus. Nor would this interpretation exactly express the sense of the Hebrew. In regard to the meaning of the passage, besides the sense referred to above, we may refer to the following opinions which have been held, and which are arranged by Hengstenberg: 1. Several, as Luther, Calvin, and Vitringa, translate it, ‘Who will declare the length of his life?’ that is, who is able to determine the length of his future days - meaning that there would be no end to his existence, and implying that though he would be cut off, yet he would be raised again, and would live forever. To this, the only material objection is, that the word ‫ דור‬dor (generation), is not used elsewhere in that sense. Calvin, however, does not refer it to the personal life of the Messiah, so to speak, but to his life in the church, or to the perpetuity of his life and principles in the church which he redeemed. His words are: ‘Yet we are to remember that the prophet does not speak only of the person of Christ, but embraces the whole body of the church, which ought never to be separated from Christ. We have, therefore, says he, a distinguished testimony respecting the perpetuity of the church. For as Christ lives for ever, so he will not suffer his kingdom to perish’ - (Commentary in loc.) 2. Others translate it, ‘Who of his contemporaries will consider it,’ or ‘considered it?’ So Storr, Doderlin, Dathe, Rosenmuller and Gesenius render it. According to Gesenius it means, ‘Who of his contemporaries considered that he was taken out of the land of the living on account of the sin of my people?’ 3. Lowth and some others adopt the interpretation first suggested, and render it, ‘His manner of life who would declare?’ In support of this, Lowth appeals to the passages from the Mishna and the Gemara of Babylon, where it is said that before anyone was punished for a capital crime, proclamation was made before him by a crier in these words, ‘Whosoever knows anything about his innocence, let him come and make it known.’ On this passage the Gemara of Babylon adds, ‘that before the death of Jesus, this proclamation was made forty days; but no defense could be found.’ This is certainly false; and there is no sufficient reason to think that the custom prevailed at all in the time of Isaiah, or in the time of the Saviour. 4. Others render it, ‘Who can express his posterity, the number of his descendants?’ So Hengstenberg renders it. So also Kimchi. 5. Some of the fathers referred it to the humanity of Christ, and to his miraculous conception. This was the belief of Chrysostom. See Calvin in loc. So also Morerius and Cajetan understood it. But the word is never used in this sense. The word ‫ דור‬dor (generation), means properly an age, a generation of human beinigs; the revolving period or circle of human life; from ‫ דור‬dur, a circle Deu_23:3-4, Deu_23:9; Ecc_1:4. It then means, also, a dwelling, a habitation Psa_49:20; Isa_38:12. It occurs often in the Old Testament, and is in all other instances translated ‘generation,’ or ‘generations.’ Amidst the variety of interpretations which have been proposed, it is perhaps not possible to determine with any considerable degree of certainty what is the true sense of the passage. The only light, it seems to me, which can be thrown on it, is to be derived from the 10th verse, where it is said, ‘He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days;’ and this would lead us to suppose that the sense is, that he would have a posterity which no one would be able to enumerate, or declare. According to this, the sense would be, ‘He shall be indeed cut off out of the land of the living. But his name, his race shall not be extinct. Notwithstanding this, his generation, race, posterity, shall be so numerous that no one shall be able to declare it.’ This interpretation is not quite satisfactory, but it has more probabilities in its favor than any other.

For - (‫ כי‬kı@y). This particle does not here denote the cause of what was just stated, but points out the connection (compare 1Sa_2:21; Ezr_10:1). In these places it denotes the same as ‘and.’ This seems to be the sense here. Or, if it be here a causal particle, it refers not to what immediately goes before, but to the general strain and drift of the discourse. All this would occur to him because he was cut off on account of the transgression of his people. He was taken from confinement, and was dragged to death by a judicial sentence, and he should have a numerous spiritual posterity, because he was cut off on account of the sins of the people. He was cut off - This evidently denotes a violent, and not a peaceful death. See Dan_9:26 : ‘And after threescore and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.’ The Septuagint renders it, ‘For his life is taken away from the earth.’ The word used here (‫ גזר‬gazar), means properly “to cut, to cut in two, to divide.” It is applied to the act of cutting down trees with an axe (see 2Ki_6:4). Here the natural and obvious idea is, that he would be violently taken away, as if he was cut down in the midst of his days. The word is never used to denote a peaceful death, or a death in the ordinary course of events; and the idea which would be conveyed by it would be, that the person here spoken of would be cut off in a violent manner in the midst of his life. For the transgression of my people - The meaning of this is not materially different from ‘on account of our sins.’ ‘The speaker here - Isaiah - does not place himself in opposition to the people, but includes himself among them, and speaks of them as his people, that is, those with whom he was connected’ - (Hengstenberg). Others, however, suppose that Yahweh is here introduced as speaking, and that he says that the Messiah was to be cut off for the sins of his people. Was he stricken - Margin, ‘The stroke upon him;’ that is, the stroke came upon him. The word rendered in the margin ‘stroke’ (‫ נגע‬nega‛), denotes properly a blow Deu_17:8 :Deu_21:5; then a spot, mark, or blemish in the skin, whether produced by the leprosy or any other cause. It is the same word which is used in Isa_53:4 (see the note on that verse). The Hebrew, which is rendered in the margin ‘upon him’ (‫ למו‬lamo) has given rise to much discussion. It is properly and usually in the plural form, and it has been seized upon by those who maintain that this whole passage refers not to one individual but to some collective body, as of the people, or the prophets (see Analysis prefixed to Isa_52:13), as decisive of the controversy. To this word Rosenmuller, in his Prolegomena to the chapter, appeals for a decisive termination of the contest, and supposes the prophet to have used this plural form for the express purpose of clearing up any difficulty in regard to his meaning. Gesenius refers to it for the same purpose, to demonstrate that the prophet must have referred to some collective body - as the prophets - and not to an individual. Aben Ezra and Abarbanel also maintain the same thing, and defend the position that it can never be applied to an individual. This is not the place to go into an extended examination of this word. The difficulties which have been started in regard to it, have given rise to a thorough critical examination of the use of the particle in the Old Testament, and an inquiry whether it is ever used in the singular number. Those who are disposed to see the process and the result of the investigation, may consult Ewald’s Hebrew Grammar, Leipzig, 1827, p. 365; Wiseman’s Lectures, pp. 331-333, Andover Edit., 1837; and Hengstenberg’s Christology, p. 523. In favor of regarding it as used here in the singular number and as denoting an individual, we may just refer to the following considerations: 1. It is so rendered by Jerome, and in the Syriac version. 2. In some places the suffix ‫ מו‬mo, attached to nouns, is certainly singular. Thus in Psa_11:7, (‫ פניטו‬paneytʖo) ‘His face,’ speaking of God; Job_27:23, ‘Men shall clap their hands at him’ (‫‛ עלימו‬

aleymo), where it is certainly singular; Isa_44:15, ‘He maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto’ (‫ למו‬lamo). 3. In Ethiopic the suffix is certainly singular (Wiseman). These considerations show that it is proper to render it in the singular number, and to regard it as referring to an individual. The Septuagint renders it, Εrς+Θάνατον Eis Thanaton - ‘Unto death,’ and evidently read it as if it were an abbreviation of ‫ למות‬lamuth, and they render the whole passage, ‘For the transgressions of my people he was led unto death.’ This translation is adopted and defended by Lowth, and has also been defended by Dr. Kennicott. The only argument which is urged, however, is, that it was so used by Origen in his controversy with the Jews; that they made no objection to the argument that he urged; and that as Origen and the Jews were both acquainted with the Hebrew text, it is to be presumed that this was then the reading of the original. But this authority is too slight to change the Hebrew text. The single testimony of Origen is too equivocal to determine any question in regard to the reading of the Hebrew text, and too much reliance should not be reposed even on his statements in regard to a matter of fact. This is one of the many instances in which Lowth has ventured to change the Hebrew text with no sufficient authority.

2. CLARKE, “And who shall declare his generation “And his manner of life who would declare” - A learned friend has communicated to me the following passages from the Mishna, and the Gemara of Babylon, as leading to a satisfactory explication of this difficult place. It is said in the former, that before any one was punished for a capital crime, proclamation was made before the prisoner by the public crier, in these words: ‫עליו‬+‫וילמד‬+‫יבא‬+‫זכות‬+‫לו‬+‫שיודע‬+‫מי‬+‫כל‬ col+mi+shioda+lo+zachoth+yabo+vayilmad+alaiv, “whosoever knows any thing of this man’s innocence, let him come and declare it. “Tract. Sandhedrim. Surenhus. Part 4 p. 233. On which passage the Gemara of Babylon adds, that “before the death of Jesus this proclamation was made for forty days; but no defense could be found.” On which words Lardner observes: “It is truly surprising to see such falsities, contrary to well-known facts.” Testimonies, Vol. 1 p. 198. The report is certainly false; but this false report is founded on the supposition that there was such a custom, and so far confirms the account given from the Mishna. The Mishna was composed in the middle of the second century according to Prideaux; Lardner ascribes it to the year of Christ 180. Casaubon has a quotation from Maimonides which farther confirms this account: - Exercitat. in Baronii Annales, Art. lxxvi. Ann. 34. Numbers 119. Auctor est Maimonides in Perek 13 ejus libri ex opere Jad, solitum fieri, ut cum reus, sententiam mortis passus, a loco judicii exibat ducendus ad supplicium, praecedoret ipsum ‫חכרוז‬+κηρυξ, praeco; et haec verba diceret: Ille exit occidendus morte illa, quia transgressus est transgressione illa, in loco illo, tempore illo, et sunt ejus ret testes ille et ille. Qui noverit aliquid ad ejus innoeentiam probandam, veniat, et loquatur pro eo. “It was customary when sentence of death was passed upon a criminal, and he was led out from the seat of judgment to the place of punishment, a crier went before, and spoke as follows: - ‘This man is going out to suffer death by - because he has transgressed by - such a transgression, in such a place, in such a time; and the witnesses against him are - . He who may know any thing relative to his innocence let him come and speak in his behalf.’“ Now it is plain from the history of the four Evangelists, that in the trlal and condemnation of Jesus no such rule was observed; though, according to the account of the Mishna, it must have

been in practice at that time, no proclamation was made for any person to bear witness to the innocence and character of Jesus; nor did any one voluntarily step forth to give his attestation to it. And our Savior seems to refer to such a custom, and to claim the benefit of it, by his answer to the high priest, when he asked him of his disciples and of his doctrine: “I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them who heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said,” Joh_18:20, Joh_18:21. This, therefore, was one remarkable instance of hardship and injustice, among others predicted by the prophet, which our Savior underwent in his trial and sufferings. St. Paul likewise, in similar circumstances, standing before the judgment seat of Festus, seems to complain of the same unjust treatment; that no one was called, or would appear, to vindicate his character. “My manner of life (την+βιωσιν+µου, ‫ דורי‬dori, ‘my generation’) from my youth, which was at the first among my own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who knew me from the beginning, if they would testify; that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee;” Act_26:4, Act_26:5. ‫ דור‬dor signifies age, duration, the time which one man or many together pass in this world, in this place; the course, tenor, or manner of life. The verb ‫ דור‬dor signifies, according to Castell, ordinatam vitam sive aetatem egit, ordinavit, ordine constituit. “He passed a certain course of life, he ordained,” etc. In Arabic, curavit,+administravit, “he took care of, administered to.” Was he stricken “He was smitten to death” - The Septuagint read ‫ למות‬lemaveth, εις+θαν ατον, “to death.” And so the Coptic and Saidic Versions, from the Septuagint; MSS. St. Germain de Prez. “Origen, “(Contra Celsum, lib. 1 p. 370, edit. 1733), after having quoted at large this prophecy concerning the Messiah, “tells us, that having once made use of this passage in a dispute against some that were accounted wise among the Jews, one of them replied, that the words did not mean one man, but one people, the Jews, who were smitten of God and dispersed among the Gentiles for their conversion; that he then urged many parts of this prophecy to show the absurdity of this interpretation, and that he seemed to press them the hardest by this sentence, α πο+των+ανοµιων+του+λαου+µον+ηχθη+εις+θανατον, ‘for the iniquity of my people was he smitten to death.’” Now as Origen, the author of the Hexapla, must have understood Hebrew, we cannot suppose that he would have urged this last quotation as so decisive if the Greek Version had not agreed here with the Hebrew text; nor that these wise Jews would have been at all distressed by this quotation, unless their Hebrew text had read agreeably to εις+θανατον, “to death,” on which the argument principally depended; for, by quoting it immediately, they would have triumphed over him, and reprobated his Greek version. This, whenever they could do it, was their constant practice in their disputes with the Christians. Jerome, in his Preface to the Psalms, says, Nuper cum Hebraeo disputans, quaedam pro Domino Salvatore de Psalmis testimonia protulisti: volensque ille te illudere, per sermones fere singulos asserebat, non ita haberi in Hebraeo, ut tu de lxx. opponebas. “Lately disputing with a Hebrew, - thou advancedst certain passages out of the Psalms which bear testimony to the Lord the Savior; but he, to elude thy reasoning, asserted that almost all thy quotations have an import in the Hebrew text different from what they had in the Greek.” And Origen himself, who laboriously compared the Hebrew text with the Septuagint, has recorded the necessity of arguing with the Jews from such passages only as were in the Septuagint agreeable to the Hebrew: Yνα+προς+Ιουδαιοις+διαλεγοµενοι+µη+προφερωµεν+αυτοι+τα+µη+κε ιµενα+εν+τοις+αντιγραφοις+αυτων,+και+Yνα+συγχρησωµεθα+τοις+φεροµενοις+παρ’ εκεινοις. See Epist. ad

African. p. 15, 17. Wherefore as Origen had carefully compared the Greek version of the Septuagint with the Hebrew text, and speaks of the contempt with which the Jews treated all appeals to the Greek version where it differed from their Hebrew text; and as he puzzled and confounded the learned Jews by urging upon them the reading εις+θανατον, “unto death,” in this place; it seems almost impossible not to conclude, both from Origen’s argument and the silence of his Jewish adversaries, that the Hebrew text at that time actually had ‫ למות‬lemaveth, “to death,” agreeably to the version of the Septuagint. - Dr. Kennicott.

3. GILL, “He was taken from prison, and from judgment,.... After he had suffered and died, and made satisfaction to divine justice; or after he had been arrested by the justice of God, and was laid in prison, and under a sentence of condemnation, had judgment passed upon him, and that executed too; he was taken in a very little time from the prison of the grave where he lay, and from the state of condemnation into which he was brought, and was acquitted, justified, and declared righteous, and his people in him; a messenger was sent from heaven to roll away the stone, and set him free: though some render it, he was taken by distress and judgment; that is, his life was taken away in a violent manner, under a pretence of justice; whereas the utmost injustice was done him; a wrong charge was brought against him, false witnesses were suborned, and his life was taken away with wicked hands; which sense seems to be favoured by the quotation in Act_8:32 "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away": he had not common justice done him: and who shall declare his generation? which is not to be understood of his divine generation, as the Son of God, which is in a way ineffable and inconceivable; nor of his human generation, as the Son of Man, which is unaccountable, being born of a virgin; nor of the duration of his life after his resurrection, he dying no more, but living for ever, which is more probable; nor of the vast number of his spiritual offspring, the fruit of his sufferings, death, and resurrection; but of the age, and men of it, in which he lived, whose barbarity to him, and wickedness they were guilty of, were such as could not be declared by the mouth, or described by the pen of man. The Targum is, "and the wonderful things which shall be done for us in his days, who can declare?'' for he was cut off out of the land of the living; was not suffered to live, was taken off by a violent death; he was cut off in a judiciary way, as if he had been a malefactor; though lest it should be thought it was for his own sins he was cut off, which is denied, Dan_9:26 it is added, for the transgression of my people was he stricken; that is, either through the malice and wickedness of the people of the Jews, whom the prophet calls his people, he was stricken, not only with the scourges of the whip, but with death itself, as the efficient cause thereof; or rather because of the transgressions of God's elect, in order to make satisfaction for them, he was stricken by divine justice, and put to death, as the meritorious cause thereof; and so they are the words of God the Father; and this, with the preceding clause, give a reason, showing both why he was taken from the prison of the grave, acquitted, and exalted, and why the wickedness of his age could not be declared; he being stricken and cut off in such a manner, when he was an

innocent person; and since it was only for the transgressions of others, even of God's covenant people, the people he chose, and gave to Christ, Mat_1:21

4. HENRY, “The consequence of this to Christ was his resurrection and advancement to perpetual honour. This makes the offence of the cross perfectly to cease; he yielded himself to die as a sacrifice, as a lamb, and, to make it evident that the sacrifice he offered of himself was accepted, we are told here, Isa_53:8, [1.] That he was discharged: He was taken from prison and from judgment; whereas he was imprisoned in the grave under a judicial process, lay there under an arrest for our debt, and judgment seemed to be given against him, he was by an express order from heaven taken out of the prison of the grave, an angel was sent on purpose to roll away the stone and set him at liberty, by which the judgment given against him was reversed and taken off; this redounds not only to his honour, but to our comfort; for, being delivered for our offences, he was raised again for our justification. That discharge of the bail amounted to a release of the debt. [2.] That he was preferred: Who shall declare his generation? his age, or continuance (so the word signifies), the time of his life? He rose to die no more; death had no more dominion over him. He that was dead is alive, and lives for evermore; and who can describe that immortality to which he rose, or number the years and ages of it? And he is advanced to this eternal life because for the transgression of his people he became obedient to death. We may take it as denoting the time of his usefulness, as David is said to serve his generation, and so to answer the end of living. Who can declare how great a blessing Christ by his death and resurrection will be to the world? Some by his generation understand his spiritual seed: Who can count the vast numbers of converts that shall by the gospel be begotten to him, like the dew of the morning? When thus exalted he shall live to see A numberless believing progeny Of his adopted sons; the godlike race Exceed the stars that heav'n's high arches grace. - Sir R. Blackmore Of this generation of his let us pray, as Moses did for Israel, The Lord God of our fathers make them a thousand times so many more as they are, and bless them as he has promised them, Deu_1:11.

5. JAMISON. “Rather, “He was taken away (that is, cut off) by oppression and by a judicial sentence”; a hendiadys for, “by an oppressive judicial sentence” [Lowth and Hengstenberg]. Gesenius not so well, “He was delivered from oppression and punishment” only by death. English Version also translates, “from ... from,” not “by ... by.” But “prison” is not true of Jesus, who was not incarcerated; restraint and bonds (Joh_18:24) more accord with the Hebrew. Act_8:33; translate as the Septuagint: “In His humiliation His judgment (legal trial) was taken away”; the virtual sense of the Hebrew as rendered by Lowth and sanctioned by the inspired writer of Acts; He was treated as one so mean that a fair trial was denied Him (Mat_26:59; Mar_14:55-59). Horsley translates, “After condemnation and judgment He was accepted.” who ... declare ... generation — who can set forth (the wickedness of) His generation? that is, of His contemporaries [Alford on Act_8:33], which suits best the parallelism, “the wickedness of His generation” corresponding to “oppressive judgment.” But Luther, “His length of life,” that is, there shall be no end of His future days (Isa_53:10; Rom_6:9). Calvin includes the days of His Church, which is inseparable from Himself. Hengstenberg, “His posterity.” He, indeed, shall be cut off, but His race shall be so numerous that none can fully declare it. Chyrsostom, etc., “His eternal sonship and miraculous incarnation.”

cut off — implying a violent death (Dan_9:26). my people — Isaiah, including himself among them by the word “my” [Hengstenberg]. Rather, Jehovah speaks in the person of His prophet, “My people,” by the election of grace (Heb_2:13). was he stricken — Hebrew, “the stroke (was laid) upon Him.” Gesenius says the Hebrew means “them”; the collective body, whether of the prophets or people, to which the Jews refer the whole prophecy. But Jerome, the Syriac, and Ethiopiac versions translate it “Him”; so it is singular in some passages; Psa_11:7, His; Job_27:23, Him; Isa_44:15, thereto. The Septuagint, the Hebrew, lamo, “upon Him,” read the similar words, lamuth, “unto death,” which would at once set aside the Jewish interpretation, “upon them.” Origen, who laboriously compared the Hebrew with the Septuagint, so read it, and urged it against the Jews of his day, who would have denied it to be the true reading if the word had not then really so stood in the Hebrew text [Lowth]. If his sole authority be thought insufficient, perhaps lamo may imply that Messiah was the representative of the collective body of all men; hence the equivocal plural-singular form.

6. K&D, “The description of the closing portion of the life of the Servant of Jehovah is continued in Isa_53:8. “He has been taken away from prison and from judgment; and of His generation who considered: 'He was snatched away out of the land of the living; for the wickedness of my people punishment fell upon Him'?” The principal emphasis is not laid upon the fact that He was taken away from suffering, but that it was out of the midst of suffering that He was carried off. The idea that is most prominent in luqqach (with a in half pause) is not that of being translated (as in the accounts of Enoch and Elijah), but of being snatched or hurried away (abreptus est, Isa_52:5; Eze_33:4, etc.). The parallel is abscissus (cf., nikhrath, Jer_11:19) a terra viventium, for which ‫ נִ גְ זַ ר‬by itself is supposed to be used in the sense of carried away (i.e., out of the sphere of the living into that of the dead, Lam_3:54; cf., Eze_37:11, “It is all over with us”). ‫( ע ֶּצר‬from ‫ע ַצר‬, ָ compescere) is a violent constraint; here, as in Psa_107:39, it signifies a persecuting treatment which restrains by outward force, such as that of prison or bonds; and mishpat refers to the judicial proceedings, in which He was put upon His trial, accused and convicted as worthy of death - in other words, to His unjust judgment. The min might indeed be understood, as in Isa_53:5, not as referring to the persons who swept Him away (= 4π), but, as in Psa_107:39, as relating to the ground and cause of the sweeping away. But the local sense, which is the one most naturally suggested by luqqach (e.g., Isa_49:24), is to be preferred: hostile oppression and judicial persecution were the circumstances out of which He was carried away by death. With regard to what follows, we must in any case adhere to the ordinary usage, according to which dor (= Arab. daur, dahr, a revolution or period of time) signifies an age, or the men living in a particular age; also, in an ethical sense, the entire body of those who are connected together by similarity of disposition (see, for example, Psa_14:5); or again (= Arab. da

r) a dwelling, as in Isa_38:12, and possibly also (of the grave) in Psa_49:20. Such meanings as length of life (Luther and Grotius), course of life (Vitringa), or fate (Hitzig), it is impossible to sustain. Hence the Sept. rendering, τŸν+γενεŽν+α9τοL+τίς διηγήσεται, which Jerome also adopts, can only mean, so far as the usage of the language is concerned, “who can declare the number of His generation” (i.e., of those inspire by His spirit,or filled with His life); but in this connection

such a thought would be premature. Moreover, the generation intended would be called ‫זַ ְרעוֹ‬ rather than ‫דורו‬, as springing from Him. Still less can we adopt the meaning “dwelling,” as Knobel does, who explains the passage thus: “who considers how little the grave becomes Him, which He has received as His dwelling-place.” The words do not admit of this explanation. Hofmann formerly explained the passage as meaning, “No one takes His dwelling-place into his mind or mouth, so as even to think of it, or inquire what had become of Him;” but in His Schriftbeweis he has decided in favour of the meaning, His contemporaries, or the men of His generation. It is only with this rendering that we obtain a thought at all suitable to the picture of suffering given here, or to the words which follow (compare Jer_2:31, O ye men of this generation). ‫ וְ ֶאת־€וֹרוֹ‬in that case is not the object to +ַ‫שׂוֹחח‬ ֵ ְ‫י‬, the real object to which is rather the clause introduced by ‫`י‬, ִ but an adverbial accusative, which may serve to give emphatic prominence to the subject, as we may see from Isa_57:12; Eze_17:21; Neh_9:34 (Ges §117, Anm.); for ‫ ֶאת‬cannot be a preposition, since inter aequales ejus would not be expressed in Hebrew by ‫את־דרור‬, but by ‫בדורו‬. The pilel sochea}ch with be signifies in Psa_143:5 a thoughtful consideration or deliberation, in a word, meditationem alicujus rei (compare the kal with the accusative, Psa_145:5). The following kı̄ is an explanatory quod: with regard to His contemporaries, who considered that, etc. The words introduced with kı̄ are spoken, as it were, out of the heart of His contemporaries, who ought to have considered, but did not. We may see from ‫ ַע ִ¨י‬that it is intended to introduce a direct address; and again, if we leave

kı̄ untranslated, like ©τι recitativum (see, for example, Jos_2:24; compare di, Dan_2:25), we can understand why the address, which has been carried on thus far in such general terms, assumes all at once an individual form. It cannot be denied, indeed, that we obtain a suitable object for the missing consideration, if we adopt this rendering: “He was torn away (3rd praet.) out of the land of the living, through (min denoting the mediating cause) the wicked conduct of my people (in bringing Him to death), to their own punishment; i.e., none of the men of His age (like mı̄ in Isa_53:1, no one = only a very few) discerned what had befallen them on account of their sin, in ridding themselves of Him by a violent death.” Hofmann and V. F. Oehler both adopt this explanation, saying, “Can the prophet have had the person of the Ecce Homo before his eye, without intimating that his people called down judgment upon themselves, by laying violent hands upon the Servant of God?” We cannot, however, decide in favour of this explanation; since the impression produced by this ‫ ִמ ֶš ַשׁע ַע ִ¨י נֶ גַ ע ָלמוֹ‬is, that it is intended to be taken as a rectification of ‫ ואנחנו חשׁבנהו נגוע‬in Isa_53:4, to which it stands in a reciprocal relation. This reciprocal relation is brought out more fully, if we regard the force of the min as still continued (ob plagam quae illis debebatur, Seb. Schmid, Kleinert, etc.); though not in the sense of “through the stroke proceeding from them, my people” (Hahn), which would be opposed to the general usage of ‫ ;נֶ גַ ע‬or taking ‫ נגע למו‬as a relative clause, populi mei quibus plaga debebatur (Hengstenberg, Hävernick). But the most natural course is to take lamo as referring to the Servant of God, more especially as our prophet uses lamo pathetically for lo, as Isa_54:15 unquestionably shows (notwithstanding the remonstrance of Stier, who renders the passage, “He was all plague, or smiting, for them”). ‫ נֶ גַ ע‬always signifies suffering as a calamity proceeding from Go (e.g., Exo_11:1; Psa_39:11, and in every other passage in which it does not occur in the special sense of leprosy, which also points back, however, to the generic idea of a plague divinely sent); hence Jerome renders it, “for the sin of my people have I smitten Him.” The text does not

read so; but the smiter is really Jehovah. Men looked upon His Servant as a ‫ ;נגוע‬and so He really was, but not in the sense of which men regarded Him as such. Yet, even if they had been mistaken concerning His during His lifetime; now that He no longer dwelt among the living, they ought to see, as they looked back upon His actions and His sufferings, that it was not for His own wickedness, but for that of Israel, viz., to make atonement for it, that such a visitation from God had fallen upon Him (+ְ‫ ל‬as in Isa_24:16 and Isa_26:16, where the sentence is in the same logical subordination to the previous one as it is here, where Dachselt gives this interpretation, which is logically quite correct: propter praevaricationem populi mei plaga ei contingente).

7. CALVIN, “8.From prison and judgment. There are various ways in which this passage is expounded. Some think that the Prophet continues the argument which he had already begun to treat, namely, that Christ was smitten by the hand of God, and afflicted, on account of our sins. The Greek translators render it, ἐν τὣ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ᾔρθη. “ his humiliation his judgment was taken away.” Others, “ was taken away without delay.” Others explain it, “ was taken away to the cross;“ that is, as soon as Christ was seized, he was dragged to “” I rather agree with those who think that the Prophet, after having spoken of death, passes to the glory of the resurrection. He intended to meet the thoughts by which the minds of many persons might have been troubled and distressed; for when we see nothing but wounds and shame, we are struck with amazement, because human nature shrinks from such a spectacle. The Prophet therefore declares that he was taken away; that is, that he was rescued “ prison and judgment” or condemnation, and afterwards was exalted to the highest rank of honor; that no one might think that he was overwhelmed or swallowed up by that terrible and shameful kind of death. For, undoubtedly, he was victorious even in the midst of death, and triumphed over his enemies; and he was so judged that now he has been appointed to be judge of all, as was publicly manifested by his resurrection. (Act_10:42) The same order is followed by the Prophet as by Paul, who, after having declared that Christ was abased even to the cross, adds that, on this account, he was exalted to the very highest honor, and that there was given him a: name to which all things both in heaven and in earth must render obedience and bend the knee. (Phi_2:9) Who shall relate his generation? This exclamation has been stretched and (I may say) tortured into various meanings. The ancients abused this passage in reasoning against the Arians, when they wished to prove by it Christ’ eternal generation. But they ought to have been satisfied with clearer testimonies of Scripture, that they might not expose themselves to the mockery of heretics, who sometimes take occasion from this to become more obstinate; for it might easily have been objected that the Prophet was not thinking about that subject. Chrysostom views it as relating to the human nature of Christ, that he was miraculously, and not by ordinary generation, conceived in the womb of the virgin; but that is a wide departure from the Prophet’ meaning. Others think that Isaiah kindles into rage against the men of that age who crucified Christ. Others refer it to the posterity which should be born; namely, that Christ’ posterity will be numerous though he die. But, as ‫( דור‬dor) signifies “” or “” I have no doubt that he speaks of the “” of Christ, and that his meaning is, that Christ, though almost overwhelmed by sicknesses, shall not only be taken from them, but that even his age shall be permanent and eternal; or, in other words, that he shall be unlike those who are indeed rescued from death, but shall afterwards die; for Christ rose from the dead, to live for ever, and, as Paul

says, “ now die; death shall no longer have dominion over him.” (Rom_6:9) Yet let us remember that the Prophet does not speak of Christ’ person alone, but includes the whole body of the Church, which ought never to be separated from him. We have therefore a striking proof of the perpetuity of the Church. As Christ liveth for ever, so he will not permit his kingdom to perish. The same immortality shall at length be bestowed on each of the members. For he was cut off. This might indeed, at first sight, appear to be absurd, that the death of Christ is the cause and source of our life; but, because he bore the punishment of our sins, we ought therefore to apply to ourselves all the shame that appears in the cross. Yet in Christ the wonderful love of God shines forth, which renders his glory visible to us; so that we ought to be excited to rapturous admiration. For the transgression of my people. He again repeats that the wound was inflicted on him “ the sins of the people;“ and the object is, that we may diligently consider that it was for our sake, and not for his own, that he suffered; for he bore the punishment which we must have endured, if he had not offered this atonement. We ought to perceive in ourselves that guilt of which he bore the accusation and punishment, having offered himself in our name to the Father, (51) that by his condemnation we may be set free.

(51) “Au pere celeste.” “ the heavenly Father.”

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

1.BARNES, “And he made his grave with the wicked - Jerome renders this, Et dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte sua. The Septuagint renders it, ‘I will give the wicked instead of his burial ("ντw+τ’ς+ταφ’ς anti tes taphes), and the rich in the place, or instead of his death’ ("ντw+τοL+θανάτου anti tou thanatou). The Chaldee renders it, ‘He will deliver the wicked into Gehenna, and the rich in substance who oppress, by a death that is destructive, that the

workers of iniquity may no more be established, and that they may no more speak deceit in their mouth.’ The Syriac renders it beautifully, ‘the wicked gave a grave.’ Hengstenberg renders it, ‘They appointed him his grave with the wicked (but he was with a rich man after his death); although he had done nothing unrighteous, and there was no guile in his mouth.’ The sense, according to him, is, that not satisfied with his sufferings and death, they sought to insult him even in death, since they wished to bury his corpse among criminals. It is then incidentally remarked, that this object was not accomplished. This whole verse is exceedingly important; and every word in it deserves a serious examination, and attentive consideration. It has been subjected to the closest investigation by critics, and different interpretations have been given to it. They may be seen at length in Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Hengstenberg. The word rendered ‘he made’ (‫ נויתן‬vayiten, from ‫ נתן‬nathan) is a word of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. According to Gesenius, it means: 1. To give, as: (a) to give the hand to a victor; (b) to give into the hand of anyone, that is, the power; (c) to give, that is, to turn the back; (d) to give, that is, to yield fruit as a tree; (e) to give, that is, to show compassion: (f) to give honor, praise, etc.: (g) to give into prison, or into custody. 2. To sit, place, put, lay; (a) to set before anyone; (b) to set one over any person or thing; (c) to give one’s heart to anything; that is, to apply the mind, etc. 3. To make; (a) to make or constitute one as anything; (b) to make a thing as something else. The notion of giving, or giving over, is the essential idea of the word, and not that of making, as our translation would seem to imply; and the sense is, that he was given by design to the grave of the wicked, or it was intended that he should occupy such a grave. The meaning then would be: And his grave was appointed with the wicked; But he was with a rich man in his death Although he had done no wrong, Neither was there any guile in his mouth. But who gave, or appointed him? I answer: 1. The word may either here be used impersonally, as in Psa_72:15. ‘to him shall be given,’ margin, ‘one shall give,’ Ecc_2:21, meaning, that someone gave, or appointed his grave with the wicked; that is, his grave was appointed with the wicked; or, 2. The phrase ‘my people’ (‫‛ עמי‬ammı@y) must be supplied; my people appointed his grave to be with the wicked; or, 3. God gave, or appointed his grave with the wicked. It seems to me that it is to be regarded as used impersonally, meaning that his grave was appointed with the wicked; and then the sense will be, that it was designed that he should be

buried with the wicked, without designating the person or persons who intended it. So it is correctly rendered by Lowth and Noyes, ‘His grave was appointed with the wicked.’ With the wicked - It was designed that he should be buried with the wicked. The sense is, that it was not only intended to put him to death, but also to heap the highest indignity on him. Hence, it was intended to deny him an honorable burial, and to consign him to the same ignominious grave with the violators of the laws of God and man. One part of an ignominious punishment has often been to deny to him who has been eminent in guilt an honorable burial. Hence, it was said of Ahab 1Ki_21:19, that the dogs should lick his blood; and of Jezebel that the dogs should eat her 1Ki_21:23. Thus of the king of Babylon Isa_14:19, that he should ‘be cast out of his grave as an abominable branch’ (see the note on that place). Hence, those who have been especially guilty are sometimes quartered, and their heads and other parts of the body suspended on posts, or they are hung in chains, and their flesh left to be devoured by the fowls of heaven. So Josephus (Ant. iv. 8. 6), says, ‘He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang on a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner.’ The idea here is, that it was intended to cast the highest possible indignity on the Messiah; not only to put him to death, but even to deny him the privilege of an honorable burial, and to commit him to the same grave with the wicked. How remarkably was this fulfilled! As a matter of course, since he was put to death with wicked people, he would naturally have been buried with them, unless there had been some special interposition in his case. He was given up to be treated as a criminal; he was made to take the vacated place of a murderer - Barabbas - on the cross; he was subjected to the same indignity and cruelty to which the two malefactors were; and it was evidently designed also that he should be buried in the same manner, and probably in the same grave. Thus in Joh_19:31, it is said thai the Jews, because it was the preparation, in order that their bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath day, ‘besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away;’ intending evidently that their death should be hurried in the same cruel manner, and that they should be buried in the same way. Who can but wonder at the striking accuracy of the prediction! And with the rich - (‫‛ עשׁיר‬ashı@yr). The words ‘he was,’ are here to be supplied. ‘But he was with a rich man in his death? The particle ‫( ו‬v), rendered “and,” is properly here adversative, and means “but, yet.” The meaning is, that although he had been executed with criminals, and it had been expected that he would be interred with them, yet he was associated with a rich man in his death; that is, in his burial. The purpose which had been cherished in regard to his burial was not accomplished. The word ‫‛ עשׁיר‬ashı@yr (from ‫‛ עשׁר‬ashar, “to be straight, to prosper, to be happy,” and then “to be rich”), means properly the rich, and then the honorable and noble. It occurs very often in the Bible (see Taylor’s Concord.), and is in all cases in our English version rendered ‘rich.’ Gesenius contends, however, that it sometimes is to be taken in a bad sense, and that it means proud, arrogant, impious, because riches are a source of pride, and pride to a Hebrew is synonymous with impiety. He appeals to Job_27:19, in proof of this. But it is evident that the place in Job, ‘The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered,’ may be understood as speaking of a rich man as he is commonly found; and the word there does not mean proud, or wicked, but it means a rich man who is without religion. In all places where the word occurs in the Bible, the primary idea is that of a rich man - though he may be righteous or wicked, pious or impious, a friend of God or an enemy. That is to be determined by the connection. And the natural and proper idea here is that of a man who is wealthy, though without any intimation with regard to his moral character. It is rather implied that the man referred to would have a character different from ‘the wicked,’ with whom his grave was appointed. Several interpreters, however, of the highest charactor,

have supposed that the word here refers to the ungodly, and means, that in his death he was associated with the ungodly. Thus Calvin supposes that it refers to the Scribes and Pharisees, and the impious and violent Romans who rushed upon him to take his life. Luther remarks that it means, ‘a rich man; one who gives himself to the pursuit of wealth; that is, an ungodly man.’ But the objection is insuperable that the word in the Bible never is used in this sense, to denote simply a wicked or an ungodly man. It may denote a rich man who is ungodly - but that must be determined by the connection. The simple idea in the word is that of wealth, but whether the person referred to be a man of fair or unfair, pure or impure character, is to be determined by other circumstances than the mere use of the word. So the word ‘rich’ is used in our language, and in all languages. The principal reason why it has here been supposed to mean ungodly is, that the parallelism is supposed to require it. But this is not necessary. It may be designed to intimate that there was a distinction between the design which was cherished in regard to his burial, and the fact. It was intended that he should have been interred with the wicked; but in fact, he was with the rich in his death. In his death - Margin, ‘Deaths’ (‫ במתיו‬bemothayv). Lowth renders this, ‘His tomb.’ He understands the Hebrew letter beth (b) as radical and not servile; and supposes that the word is ‫ במות‬bamoth (hills); that is, sepulchral hills. Tombs, he observes, correctly, were often hills or tumuli erected over the bodies of the dead; and he supposes that the word hill, or high place, became synonymous with a tomb, or sepulchre. This interpretation was first suggested by Aben Ezra, and has been approved by CEcolampadius, Zuingle, Drusius, Ikin, Kuinoel, and others. But the interpretation is liable to great objections. 1. It is opposed to all the ancient versions. 2. There is no evidence that the word ‫ במות‬bamoth is ever used except in one place (Eze_43:7, where it means also primarily high places, though there perhaps dedenoting a burial-place), in the sense of βωµός bomos, a tomb, or place of burial. It denotes a high place or height; a stronghold, a fastness, a fortress; and then an elevated place, where the rites of idolatry were celebrated; and though it is not improbable that those places became burial-places - as we bury in the vicinity of a place of worship yet the word simply and by itself does not denote a tumulus, or an elevated place of burial. The word here, therefore, is to be regarded as a noun from ‫ מות‬ma

veth, or ‫ מות‬moth, plural ‫ מותים‬mothı@ym, meaning the same as ‘after his death’ - ‘the grave.’ The plural is used instead of the singular in Eze_28:8-10; and also Job_21:32 : ‘Yet he shall be brought to the grave;’ Margin, as Hebrew, ‘graves.’ The sense, therefore, is, that after his death he would be with a man of wealth, but without determining anything in regard to his moral character. The exact fulfillment of this may be seen in the account which is given of the manner of the burial of the Saviour by Joseph of Arimathea (Mat_27:57-60. Joseph was a rich man. He took the body, and wound it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, a tomb hewn out of a rock - that is, a grave designed for himself; such as a rich man would use, and where it was designed that a rich man should be laid. He was buried with spices Joh_19:39-40; embalmed with a large quantity of myrrh and aloes, ‘about a hundred pound weight,’ in the mode in which the rich were usually interred. How different this from the interment of malefactors! How different from the way in which he would have been buried if he had been interred with them as it had been designed! And how very striking and minutely accurate this prophecy in circumstances which could not possibly have been the result of conjecture! How could a pretended prophet, seven hundred years before the event occurred, conjecture of one who was to be executed as a malefactor, and with malefactors, and who would in the ordinary course of

events be buried with malefactors, conjecture that he would be rescued from such an ignominious burial by the interposition of a rich man, and buried in a grave designed for a man of affluence, and in the manner in which the wealthy are buried? Because - (‫‛ על‬al). This word here has probably the signification of although. It is used for ‫‛ על אשׁר‬al 'a}sher. Thus, it is used in Job_16:17 : ‘Not for any injustice in my hands;’ Hebrew, ‘Although there is no injustice in my hands.’ The sense here demands this interpretation. According to our common version, the meaning is, that he was buried with the rich man because he had done no violence, and was guilty of no deceit; whereas it is rather to be taken in connection with the entire strain of the passage, and to be regarded as meaning, that he was wounded, rejected, put to death, and buried by the hands of men, although he had done no violence. He had done no violence - The precise sense of the expression is, that he had not by harsh and injurious conduct provoked them to treat him in this manner, or deserved this treatment at their hands. In accordance with this, and evidently with this passage in his eye, the apostle Peter says of the Lord Jesus, ‘who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth’ 1Pe_2:20-22. Neither was any deceit in his mouth - He was no deceiver, though he was regarded and treated as one. He was perfectly candid and sincere, perfectly true and holy. No one can doubt but this was exactly fulfilled in the Lord Jesus; and however it may be accounted for, it was true to the life, and it is applicable to him alone. Of what other dweller on the earth can it be said that there was no guile found in his mouth? Who else has lived who has always been perfectly free from deceit?

2. CLARKE, “With the rich in his death “With the rich man was his tomb” - It may be necessary to introduce Bishop Lowth’s translation of this verse before we come to his very satisfactory criticisms: And his grave was appointed with the wicked; But with the rich man was his tomb: Although he had done no wrong, Neither was there any guile in his mouth. Among the various opinions which have been given on this passage, I have no doubt in giving my assent to that which makes the ‫ ב‬beth in ‫ במותיו‬bemothaiv radical, and renders it excelsa sua. This is mentioned by Aben Ezra as received by some in his time; and has been long since approved by Schindler, Drusius, and many other learned Christian interpreters. The most simple tombs or monuments of old consisted of hillocks of earth heaped up over the grave; of which we have numerous examples in our own country, generally allowed to be of very high antiquity. The Romans called a monument of this sort very properly tumulus; and the Hebrews as properly ‫ במות‬bamoth, “high place,” for that is the form of’ the noun in the singular number; and sixteen MSS. and the two oldest editions express the word fully in this place, ‫במותיו‬ bamothaiv. Tumulus et collem et sepulchrum fuisse significat. Potest enim tumulus sine sepulchro interpretatione collis interdum accipi. Nam et terrae congestio super ossa tumulus dicitur. “Tumulus signifies a sepulcher with a hillock of earth raised over it. The word is sometimes restrained to the bank of earth; for the heaping up of the earth over the bones is

named the tumulus.” - Servius, Aen. 3:22. And to make the tumulus still more elevated and conspicuous, a pillar or some other ornament was often erected upon it: Τυµβον+χευαντες,+και+επι+στηλην+ερυσαντες, Πηξαµεν+ακροτατ<+τυµβ<+ευηρες+ερετµον. Odyss. sii. 14. “A rising tomb, the silent dead to grace, Fast by the roarings of the main we place; The rising tomb a lofty column bore, And high above it rose the tapering oar.” Pope The tomb therefore might with great propriety be called the high place. The Hebrews might also call such a tomb ‫ במות‬bamoth, from the situation, for they generally chose to erect them on eminences. The sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which the body of Christ was laid, was upon a hill, Mount Calvary. See Isa_22:16 (note), and the note there. “It should be observed that the word ‫ במותיו‬bamothaiv is not formed from ‫ במות‬bamoth, the plural of ‫ במה‬bamah, the feminine noun, but from ‫ במותים‬bamothim, the plural of a masculine noun, ‫ במות‬bamoth. This is noted because these two nouns have been negligently confounded with one another, and absurdly reduced to one by very learned men. So Buxtorf, lex. in voc. ‫במה‬ bamah, represents ‫ במותי‬bamotey, though plainly without any pronoun suffixed, as it governs the word ‫ ארץ‬arets following it, as only another form of ‫ במות‬bamoth; whereas the truth is, that ‫במות‬ bamoth and ‫ במותים‬bamothim are different words, and have through the whole Bible very different significations; ‫ במה‬bamah, whether occurring in the singular or plural number, always signifying a place or places of worship; and ‫ במותים‬bamothim always signifying heights. Thus in Deu_32:13; Isa_58:14; Amo_4:13; and Mic_1:3, ‫ארץ‬+‫ במותי‬bamothey+arets signifies ‘the heights of the earth;’ Isa_14:14, ‫עב‬+‫ במותי‬bamothey+ab, ‘the heights of the clouds;’ and in Job_9:8, ‫ים‬+‫במותי‬ bamothey+yam, ‘the heights of the sea,’ i.e., the high waves of the sea, as Virgil calls a wave praeruptus aqua mons, ‘a broken mountain of water.’ These being all the places where this word occurs without a suffix, the sense of it seems nearly determined by them. It occurs in other instances with a pronoun suffixed, which confirm this signification. Unluckily, our English Bible has not distinguished the feminine noun ‫ במה‬bamah from the masculine singular noun ‫במות‬ bamoth; and has consequently always given the signification of the latter to the former, always rendering it a high place; whereas the true sense of the word appears plainly to be, in the very numerous passages in which it occurs, ‘a place of worship,’ or ‘a sacred court,’ or ‘a sacred inclosure;’ whether appropriated to the worship of idols or to that of the true God, for it is used of both, passive. Now as the Jewish graves are shown, from 2Ch_32:33, and Isa_22:16, to have been in high situations, to which may be added the custom of another eastern nation from Osbeck’s Travels, who says, vol. 1 p. 339, ‘the Chinese graves are made on the side of hills;’ ‘his heights’ becomes a very easy metaphor to express ‘his sepulcher.’” - Jubb. The exact completion of this prophecy will be fully shown by adding here the several circumstances of the burial of Jesus, collected from the accounts of the evangelists: -

“There was a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, a member of the sanhedrin, and of a respectable character, who had not consented to their counsel and act; he went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus: and he laid it in his own new tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock, near to the place where Jesus was crucified; having first wound it in fine linen with spices, as the manner of the Jews was to bury the rich and great.” It has been supposed that ‫ קברו‬kibro, his grave, and ‫ במתיו‬bemothaiv, in his death, may have been transposed, as also the prefix ‫ ב‬be originally placed before ‫ רשעים‬reshaim, the wicked. Thus: ‫מתיו‬

‫את‬

‫ברשעים‬

‫ויתן‬

mothaiv

eth

bireshayim

vaiyitten

‫קברו‬

‫עשיר‬

‫ואת‬

kibro

ashir

veeth

Yea, his death was appointed among the wicked, And with a rich man, his tomb. By these alterations it is supposed the text would be freed from all embarrassment. But see the preceding notes of Bishop Lowth, and the various readings of De Rossi, in loc.

3. GILL, “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,.... These words are generally supposed to refer to a fact that was afterwards done; that Christ, who died with wicked men, as if he himself had been one, was buried in a rich man's grave. Could the words admit of the following transposition, they would exactly agree with it, "and he made his grave with the rich; and with the wicked in his death"; for he died between two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man. Or the meaning perhaps in general is, that, after his death, both rich men and wicked men were concerned in his sepulchre, and about his grave; two rich men, Nicodemus and Joseph, in taking down his body from the cross, in embalming it, and in laying it in the tomb of the latter; and wicked men, Roman soldiers, were employed in guarding the sepulchre, that his disciples might not take away the body. Or the sense is, "he" the people, the nation of the Jews, through whose enmity against him he suffered death, "gave", intended, and designed, that "his grave" should be with "the wicked"; and therefore accused him to the Roman governor, and got him condemned capitally, and condemned to a Roman death, crucifixion, that he might be buried where such sort of persons usually were; and then it may be supplied, "but he made it"; that is, God ordered and appointed, in his overruling providence, that it should be "with the rich in his death", as it was. Aben Ezra observes, that the word ‫במתיו‬, which we translate "in his death", signifies a structure over a grave, "a sepulchral monument"; and then it may be rendered impersonally thus, "his grave was put or placed with the wicked, but his tomb", or sepulchral monument, was "with the rich"; his grave was indeed put under the care and custody of the wicked soldiers; yet a famous tomb being erected over it, at the expense of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathaea, which was designed for himself, made the burial of Christ honourable: which honour was done him,

because he had done no violence: or injury to any man's person or property; had not been guilty of rapine and oppression, theft and robbery; murder and cruelty; he had not been a stirrer up of sedition, an encourager of mobs, riots, and tumults, to the harm of the civil government: neither was any deceit in his mouth: no false doctrine was delivered by him; he was no deceiver of the people, as he was charged; he did not attempt to seduce them from the true worship of God, or persuade them to believe anything contrary to the law of Moses, and the prophets; he was no enemy to church or state, nor indeed guilty of any manner of sin, nor given to any arts of trick and dissimulation; see 1Pe_2:22. Some render the words, "though" (y) "he had done no violence", &c. and connect them with the following.

4. JAMISON. “Rather, “His grave was appointed,” or “they appointed Him His grave” [Hengstenberg]; that is, they intended (by crucifying Him with two thieves, Mat_27:38) that He should have His grave “with the wicked.” Compare Joh_19:31, the denial of honorable burial being accounted a great ignominy (see on Isa_14:19; Jer_26:23). and with ... rich — rather, “but He was with a rich man,” etc. Gesenius, for the parallelism to “the wicked,” translates “ungodly” (the effect of riches being to make one ungodly); but the Hebrew everywhere means “rich,” never by itself ungodly; the parallelism, too, is one of contrast; namely, between their design and the fact, as it was ordered by God (Mat_27:57; Mar_15:43-46; Joh_19:39, Joh_19:40); two rich men honored Him at His death, Joseph of Arimathaea, and Nicodemus. in his death — Hebrew, “deaths.” Lowth translates, “His tomb”; bamoth, from a different root, meaning “high places,” and so mounds for sepulture (Eze_43:7). But all the versions oppose this, and the Hebrew hardly admits it. Rather translate, “after His death” [Hengstenberg]; as we say, “at His death.” The plural, “deaths,” intensifies the force; as Adam by sin “dying died” (Gen_2:17, Margin); that is, incurred death, physical and spiritual. So Messiah, His substitute, endured death in both senses; spiritual, during His temporary abandonment by the Father; physical, when He gave up the ghost. because — rather, as the sense demands (so in Job_16:17), “although He had done no,” etc. [Hengstenberg], (1Pe_2:20-22; 1Jo_3:5). violence — that is, wrong.

5. K&D, “After this description in Isa_53:7 of the patience with which He suffered, and in Isa_53:8 of the manner in which He died, there follows a retrospective glance at His burial. “And they assigned Him His grave with sinners, and with a rich man in His martyrdom, because He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth.” The subject to ‫וַ _ִ ֵ‚ן‬ (assigned) is not Jehovah, although this would not be impossible, since ‫ נֶ גַ ע‬has Jehovah as the latent subject; but it would be irreconcilable with Isa_53:10, where Jehovah is introduced as the subject with antithetical prominence. It would be better to assume that “my people” is the subject; but as this would make it appear as if the statement introduced in Isa_53:8 with kı̄ (for) were continued here, we seem compelled to refer it to doro (His generation), which occurs in the principal clause. No objection could be offered to our regarding “His own generation” as the

subject; but doro is somewhat too far removed for this; and if the prophet had had the contemporaries of the sufferer in his mind, he would most likely have used a plural verb (vayyittenu). Some, therefore, supply a personal subject of the most general kind to yitten (which occurs even with a neuter subject, like the German es gibt, Fr. il y a, Eng. “there is;” cf., Pro_13:10): “they (on) gave;” and looking at the history of the fulfilment, we confess that this is the rendering we prefer. In fact, without the commentary supplied by the fulfilment, it would be impossible to understand Isa_53:9 at all. The earlier translators did great violence to the text, and yet failed to bring out any admissible thought. And the explanation which is most generally adopted now, viz., that ‫ ָע ִשׁיר‬is the synonymous parallel to ‫( ְר ָשׁ ִעי‬as even Luther rendered it, “and died like a rich man,” with the marginal gloss, “a rich man who sets all his heart upon riches, i.e., a wicked man”), is also untenable; for even granting that ‛ashir could be proved by examples to ַ this would be sometimes used as synonymous with ‫רשׁע‬, as +ִ‫ ָעני‬and ‫ ֶא ְביוֹן‬are as synonyms of ‫צ ִ€יק‬, be just the passage in which it would be least possible to sustain any such use of the word; since he who finds his grave with rich men, whether with the godly or the ungodly, would thereby have received a decent, and even honourable burial. This is so thoroughly sustained by experience, as to need no confirmation from such passages as Job_21:32. Hitzig has very good ground, therefore, for opposing this “synonymous” explanation; but when he adopts the rendering lapsator, after the Arabic ‛tur, this is quite as much in opposition to Arabic usage (according to which this word merely signifies a person who falls into error, and makes a mistake in speaking), as it is to the Hebrew. Ewald changes ‫ עשׁיר‬into ‫( ַע ִ¬היק‬a word which has no existence); and Böttcher alters it into ‫ע ֵּשׂי ָרע‬, which is comparatively the best suggestion of all. ָ dְ ‫ע ִשׁיר‬, ָ “men who have become rich through the murders Hofmann connects the two words ‫מוֹתיו‬ that they have treacherously caused” (though without being able to adduce any proof that moth is ever applied to the death which one person inflicts upon another). At any rate, all these attempts spring from the indisputable assumption, that to be rich is not in itself a sin which deserves a dishonourable burial, to say nothing of its receiving one. If, therefore, ‫ רשׁיעם‬and ‫ עשׁיר‬are not kindred ideas, they must be antithetical; but it is no easier to establish a purely ethical antithesis than an ethical coincidence. If, however, we take the word ‫ רשׁעים‬as suggesting the idea of persons found guilty, or criminals (an explanation which the juridical context of the passage well sustains; see at Isa_50:9), we get a contrast which our own usage of speech also draws between a rich man who is living in the enjoyment of his own possessions, and a delinquent who has become impoverished to the utmost, through hatred, condemnation, ruin. And if we reflect that the Jewish rulers would have given to Jesus the same dishonourable burial as to the two thieves, but that the Roman authorities handed over the body to Joseph the Arimathaean, a “rich man” (Mat_27:57), who placed it in the sepulchre in his own garden, we see an agreement at once between the gospel history and the prophetic words, which could only be the work of the God of both the prophecy and its fulfilment, inasmuch as no suspicion could possibly arise of there having been any human design of bringing the former into conformity with the latter. But if it be objected, that according to the parallel the ‛ashı̄r must be regarded as dead, quite as much as the resha‛ı̄ m, we admit the force of this objection, and should explain it in this way: “They assigned Him His grave with criminals, and after He had actually died a martyr's death, with a rich man;” i.e., He was to have lain where the bodies of criminals lie, but He was really laid in a grave that was intended for the corpse of a rich man.

(Note: A clairvoyant once said of the Lord: “Died like a criminal; buried like a prince of the earth” (vid., Psychol. pp. 262, 364).) The rendering adopted by Vitringa and others, “and He was with a rich man in his death,” is open to this objection, that such a clause, to be quite free from ambiguity, would require ‫במויתו‬ ‫ואת־עשׁיר הוּא‬. Hengstenberg and Stier very properly refer both ‫ ויתן‬and ‫קברו‬, which must be repeated in thought, to the second clause as well as the first. The rendering tumulum ejus must be rejected, since bamah never has this meaning; and ‫מּ ָתיו‬dָ , which is the pointing sustained by three Codd., would not be mausolea, but a lofty burial-hill, after the fashion of the Hünengräber (certain “giants' graves,” or barrows, in Holstein and Saxony). (Note: The usage of the language shows clearly that bamah had originally the meaning of “height” (e.g., 2Sa_1:19). The primary meaning suggested by Böttcher, of locus clausus, septus (from ‫מהב = בום‬, Arab. bhm), cannot be sustained. We still hold that ‫ בם‬is the expanded ‫בא‬, and ‫ במה‬an ascent, steep place, or stair. In the Talmud, bamah is equivalent to βωµός, an altar, and ‫יִ ָמה‬d (Syr. bim) equivalent to the β’µα of the orator and judge; βωµός, root βα, like the Hebrew bamah, signifies literally an elevation, and actually occurs in the sense of a sepulchral hill, which this never has, not even in Eze_43:7.) ‫מוֹתי‬ ֵ is a plur. exaggerativus here, as in Eze_28:10 (compare memothe in Eze_28:8 and Jer_16:4); it is applied to a violent death, the very pain of which makes it like dying again and again. The first clause states with whom they at first assigned Him His grave; the second with whom it was assigned Him, after He had really died a painful death. “Of course,” as F. Philippi observes, “this was not a thorough compensation for the ignominy of having died the death of a criminal; but the honourable burial, granted to one who had been ignominiously put to death, showed that there must be something very remarkable about Him. It was the beginning of the glorification which commenced with His death.” If we have correctly interpreted the second clause, there can be no doubt in our minds, since we cannot shake the word of God like a ֲ ‫)ע‬ ַ does not kaleidoscope, and multiply the sensus complex, as Stier does, that ‫ל־א ֶשׁר לּא =( ַעל לּא‬ mean “notwithstanding that not,” as in Job_16:17, but “because not,” like ‫ ִלי‬d‫ל־‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬in Gen_31:20. The reason why the Servant of God received such honourable treatment immediately after His ignominious martyrdom, was to be found in His freedom from sin, in the fact that He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth (lxx and 1Pe_2:22, where the clause is correctly rendered ο9δ­+ε4ρέθη+δόλος+Kν+τm+στόµατι+α9τοL). His actions were invariably prompted by pure love, and His speech consisted of unclouded sincerity and truth.

6. CALVIN, “9.And he laid open to wicked men his grave. Jerome renders it, “ he gave wicked men for burial;” as if the Prophet spake of the punishment by which the Lord took vengeance for the sin of wicked men, who crucified Christ. But he rather speaks of the death of Christ, and of the fruit of it, and says nothing about that revenge. Others think that the particle ‫( את‬eth) denotes comparison, in the same manner as the particle ‫( כ‬caph). “ gave his grave as of wicked men.” Others interpret ‫( את‬eth) to mean with, and explain “ rich man” to be Joseph of Arimathea, in whose sepulcher Christ was buried. (Mat_27:60; Joh_19:38) But such an interpretation is too unnatural. I rather think that the real meaning is, that God the Father delivered Christ into the hands of wicked men.

And to the rich man his death. I consider the singular ‫( עשיר‬gnashir,) “ rich man,” to be put for the plural ‫( עשרים‬gnashirim), as is frequently done by Hebrew writers. I see no reason why Oecolampadius rendered it “ places.” (52) By “ men” he means “ men;” for men grow haughty and disdainful on account of their riches, and abuse their wealth to savage cruelty. And thus by the terms “ men” and “ men” the same thing, in my opinion, is denoted. He means, therefore, that Christ was exposed to the reproaches, and insolence, and lawless passions of wicked men. For, on the one hand, the Pharisees and priests (Mat_26:66) rush upon him with unbridled rage and foul slander; on the other hand, Pilate, though well aware of his innocence, (Mar_15:14) condemns him in opposition to law and justice; and again, on another hand, the Roman soldiers, ready for every kind of barbarity, cruelly and wickedly execute the cruel and wicked sentence. (Joh_19:16) Who would not conclude that Christ was crushed and “” amidst those impious and bloody hands? I consider the word grave to be here used metaphorically, because wicked and violent men might be said to have overwhelmed him. If it be objected that Christ had an honorable burial, I reply, that burial was the commencement of a glorious resurrection; but at present the Prophet speaks of death, which is often denoted by “ grave.” I consider this, therefore, to be the real meaning, though I wish to leave every person free to form his own opinion. Though he did no iniquity. ‫( על‬gnal) signifies “” but sometimes it is used in the sense of “” as in this passage. (53) Here the Prophet applauds the innocence of Christ, not only in order to defend him from slander, but to speak highly of the benefit of his death, that we may not think that he suffered by chance. Though innocent, he suffered by the decree of God; and therefore it was for our sake, and not for his own, that he suffered. He bore the punishment which was due to us. Neither was there deceit in his mouth. In two words he describes the perfect innocence of Christ; namely, that he never offended either in deed or in word. That this cannot be said of any mortal man is universally acknowledged, and hence it follows that it applies to Christ alone.

(52) “Je ne voy point de raison pourquoy OEcolampade a traduit, II a expose ses hants lieux au riche.” “ see no reason why OEcolampadius translated it, ‘ laid open his high places to the rich man.’” (53) “ ‫( על‬gnal), for ‫( אשר על‬gnal asher), is properly a causative particle, equivalent to ‘ that’ or ‘’ but most interpreters regard it as equivalent to ‘’ which is more agreeable to our idiom in this connection. Knobel observes, with great naivete, that the reference of this verse to the burial of Christ has found its way into the exposition of the passage in connection with its general application to that subject; to which we may add, that it can only find its way out in connection with a wish to get rid of that unwelcome application. At the same time it must be observed, that even if ‫( עשיר‬gnashir) be taken in the sense of ‘’ although we lose the striking allusion to the burial of Christ in the sepulcher of Joseph, the verse is still applicable to his burial, as the last clause then means, like the first, that they appointed him his grave with malefactors.” Alexander

10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

1.BARNES, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him - In this verse, the prediction respecting the final glory and triumph of the Messiah commences. The design of the whole prophecy is to state, that in consequence of his great sufferings, he would be exalted to the highest honor (see the notes at Isa_52:13). The sense of this verse is, ‘he was subjected to these sufferings, not on account of any sins of his, but because, under the circumstances of the case, his sufferings would be pleasing to Yahweh. He saw they were necessary, and he was willing that he should be subjected to them. He has laid upon him heavy sufferings. And when he has brought a sin-offering, he shall see a numerous posterity, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through him.’ The Lord was ‘pleased’ with his sufferings, not because he has delight in the sufferings of innocence; not because the sufferer was in any sense guilty or ill-deserving; and not because he was at any time displeased or dissatisfied with what the Mediator did, or taught. But it was: 1. Because the Messiah had voluntarily submitted himself to those sorrows which were necessary to show the evil of sin; and in view of the great object to be gained, the eternal redemption of his people, he was pleased that he would subject himself to so great sorrows to save them. He was pleased with the end in view, and with all that was necessary in order that the end might be secured. 2. Because these sufferings would tend to illustrate the divine perfections, and show the justice and mercy of God. The gift of a Saviour, such as he was, evinced boundless benevolence; his sufferings in behalf of the guilty showed the holiness of his nature and law; and all demonstrated that he was at the same time disposed to save, and yet resolved that no one should be saved by dishonoring his law, or without expiation for the evil which had been done by sin. 3. Because these sorrows would result in the pardon and recovery of an innumerable multitude of lost sinners, and in their eternal happiness and salvation. The whole work was one of benevolence, and Yahweh was pleased with it as a work of pure and disinterested love. To bruise him - (See the notes at Isa_53:5). The word here is the infinitive of Piel. ‘To bruise him, or his being bruised, was pleasing to Yahweh;’ that is, it was acceptable to him that he should be crushed by his many sorrows. It does not of necessity imply that there was any

positive and direct agency on the part of Yahweh in bruising him, but only that the fact of his being thus crushed and bruised was acceptable to him. He hath put him to grief - This word, ‘hath grieved him,’ is the same which in another form occurs in Isa_53:4. It means that it was by the agency, and in accordance with the design of Yahweh, that he was subjected to these great sorrows. When thou shalt make his soul - Margin, ‘His soul shall make.’ According to the translation in the text, the speaker is the prophet, and it contains an address to Yahweh, and Yahweh is himself introduced as speaking in Isa_53:11. According to the margin, Yahweh himself speaks, and the idea is, that his soul should make an offering for sin. The Hebrew will bear either. Jerome renders it, ‘If he shall lay down his life for sin.’ The Septuagint renders it in the plural, ‘If you shall give (an offering) for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived posterity.’ Lowth renders it, ‘If his soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice.’ Rosenmuller renders it, ‘If his soul, that is, he himself, shall place his soul as an expiation for sin.’ Noyes renders it, ‘But since he gave himself a sacrifice for sin.’ It seems to me that the margin is the correct rendering, and that it is to be regarded as in the third person. Thus the whole passage will be connected, and it will be regarded as the assurance of Yahweh himself, that when his life should be made a sacrifice for sin, he would see a great multitude who should be saved as the result of his sufferings and death. His soul - The word rendered here ‘soul’ (‫ נפשׁ‬nephesh) means properly breath, spirit, the life, the vital principle Gen_1:20-30; Gen_9:4; Lev_17:11; Deu_12:23. It sometimes denotes the rational soul, regarded as the seat of affections and emotions of various kinds Gen_34:3; Psa_86:4; Isa_15:4; Isa_42:1; Son_1:7; Son_3:1-4. It is here equivalent to himself - when he himself is made a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin. An offering for sin - (‫' אשׁם‬asham). This word properly means, blame, guilt which one contracts by transgression Gen_26:10; Jer_51:5; also a sacrifice for guilt; a sin-offering; an expiatory sacrifice. It is often rendered ‘trespass-offering’ Lev_5:19; Lev_7:5; Lev_14:21; Lev_19:21; 1Sa_6:3, 1Sa_6:8, 1Sa_6:17). It is rendered ‘guiltiness’ Gen_26:10; ‘sin’ Pro_14:9; ‘trespass’ Num_5:8. The idea here is, clearly, that he would be made an offering, or a sacrifice for sin; that by which guilt would be expiated and an atonement made. In accordance with this, Paul says 2Co_5:21, that God ‘made him to be sin for us’ (‘µαρτίαν hamartian), that is, a sinoffering; and he is called Yλασµς hilasmos and Yλαστήριον hilasterion, a propitiatory sacrifice for sins Rom_3:25; 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:10. The idea is, that he was himself innocent, and that he gave up his soul or life in order to make an expiation for sin - as the innocent animal in sacrifice was offered to God as an acknowledgment of guilt. There could be no more explicit declaration that he who is referred to here, did not die as a martyr merely, but that his death had the high purpose of making expiation for the sins of people. Assuredly this is not language which can be used of any martyr. In what sense could it be said of Ignatius or Cranmer that their souls or lives were made an offering (‫' אשׁם‬asham or Yλασµς hilasmos) for sin? Such language is never applied to martyrs in the Bible; such language is never applied to them in the common discourses of people. He shall see his seed - His posterity; his descendants. The language here is taken from that which was regarded as the highest blessing among the Hebrews. With them length of days and a numerous posterity were regarded as the highest favors, and usually as the clearest proofs of the divine love. ‘Children’s children are the crown of old men’ Pro_17:6. See Psa_127:5; Psa_128:6 : ‘Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel.’ So one of the highest blessings which could be promised to Abraham was that he would be made the father of many nations Gen_12:2; Gen_17:5-6. In accordance with this, the Messiah is promised that he shall see a numerous spiritual posterity. A similar declaration occurs in Psa_22:30, which is usually applied to the Messiah. ‘A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a

generation.’ The natural relation between father and son is often transferred to spiritual subjects. Thus the name father is often given to the prophets, or to teachers, and the name sons to disciples or learners. In accordance with this, the idea is here, that the Messiah would sustain this relation, and that there would be multitudes who would sustain to him the relation of spiritual children. There may be emphasis on the word ‘see’ - he shall see his posterity, for it was regarded as a blessing not only to have posterity, but to be permitted to live and see them. Hence, the joy of the aged Jacob in being permitted to see the children of Joseph Gen_48:11 : ‘And Israel said unto Joseph, I had not thought to see thy face; and lo, God hath showed me also thy seed. He shall prolong his days - His life shall be long. This also is language which is taken from ‘the view entertained among the Hebrews that long life was a blessing, and was a proof of the divine favor. Thus, in 1Ki_3:14, God says to Solomon, ‘if thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days’ (see Deu_25:15; Psa_21:4; Psa_91:16; Pro_3:2). The meaning here is, that the Messiah, though he should be put to death, would yet see great multitudes who should be his spiritual children. Though he should die, yet he would live again, and his days should be lengthened out. It is fulfilled in the reign of the Redeemer on earth and in his eternal existence and glory in heaven. And the pleasure of the Lord - That is, that which shall please Yahweh; the work which he desire and appoints. Shall prosper - (See the notes at Isa_52:13, where the same word occurs). In his hand - Under his government and direction. Religion will be promoted and extended through him. The reward of all his sufferings in making an offering for sin would be, that multitudes would be converted and saved; that his reign would be permanent, and that the work which Yahweh designed and desired would prosper under his administration.

2. CLARKE, “To grief “With affliction” - For ‫ החלי‬hecheli, the verb, the construction of which seems to be hard and inelegant in this place, the Vulgate reads ‫ בחלי‬bocholi, in infirmitate, “with infirmity.” When thou shalt make his soul “If his soul shall make” - For ‫ תשים‬tasim, a MS. has ‫ תשם‬tasem, which may be taken passively, “If his soul shall be made” agreeably to some copies of the Septuagint, which have δωται See likewise the Syriac. When thou shalt make his soul an offering - The word ‫נפש‬+dro nephesh, soul, is frequently used in Hebrew to signify life. Throughout the New Testament the salvation of men is uniformly attributed to the death of Christ. He shall see his seed - True converts, genuine Christians. He shall prolong his days - Or this spiritual progeny shall prolong their days, i.e., Christianity shall endure to the end of time. And the pleasure of the Lord - To have all men saved and brought to the knowledge of the truth. Shall prosper in his hand - Shall go on in a state of progressive prosperity; and so completely has this been thus far accomplished, that every succeeding century has witnessed more Christianity in the world than the preceding, or any former one.

3. GILL, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him,.... The sufferings of Christ are signified by his being "bruised"; See Gill on Isa_53:5, and as it was foretold he should have his heel bruised by the serpent, Gen_3:15, but here it is ascribed to the Lord: he was bruised in body, when buffeted and scourged, and nailed to the cross; and was bruised and broken in spirit, when the sins of his people were laid on him, and the wrath of God came upon him for them: the Lord had a hand in his sufferings; he not only permitted them, but they were according to the counsel of his will; they were predetermined by him, Act_2:23, yea, they were pleasing to him, he took a kind of delight and pleasure in them; not in them simply considered as sufferings, but as they were an accomplishment of his purposes, a fulfilment of his covenant and promises, and of the prophecies in his word; and, particularly, as hereby the salvation of his people was brought about; see Joh_10:17, he hath put him to grief; when he awoke the sword of justice against him; when he spared him not, but delivered him up into the hands of wicked men, and unto death: he was put to grief in the garden, when his soul was exceeding sorrowful; and on the cross, when he was nailed to it, had the weight of his people's sins, and his Father's wrath, on him; and when he hid his face from him, which made him cry out, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" or, "hath put him to pain": suffered him to be put to pain, both in body and mind: when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin: not his soul only, but his body also, even his whole human nature, as in union with his divine Person; for it was he himself that was offered up in the room and stead of his people, to make atonement and satisfaction for their sins, Heb_9:14, or, "when thou shalt make his soul sin" (z); so Christ was made by imputation, 2Co_5:21, and when he was so made, or had the sins of his people imputed to him, then was he bruised, and put to pain and grief, in order to finish them, and make an end of them, and make reconciliation for them: or, "when his soul shall make an offering" (a) "for sin", or "sin" itself; make itself an offering; for Christ offered up himself freely and voluntarily; he gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweetsmelling savour, Eph_5:2, he was altar, sacrifice, and priest. He shall see his seed; or, "a seed"; a spiritual seed and offspring; a large number of souls, that shall be born again, of incorruptible seed, as the fruit of his sufferings and death; see Joh_12:24, this he presently began to see after his resurrection from the dead, and ascension to heaven; when great numbers were converted among the Jews, and after that multitudes in the Gentile world, and more or less in all ages; ever since has he had a seed to serve him; and so he will in the latter day, and to the end of time: he shall prolong his days: live long, throughout all ages, to all eternity; though he was dead, he is alive, and lives for evermore; lives to see all the children that the Father gave him, and he has gathered together by his death, when scattered abroad, and see them all born again, and brought to glory. Some connect this with the preceding clause, "he shall see a seed that shall prolong its days" (b); for Christ will never want issue, his church will never fail, his seed will endure for ever, Psa_89:29. So the Targum, paraphrasing the words of Christ and his seed, "they shall see the kingdom of their Messiah; they shall multiply sons and daughters; they shall prolong their days:'' and so Aben Ezra says these words are spoken of the generation that shall return to God, and to the true religion, at the coming of the Messiah.

And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; the work of man's redemption, put into the hands of Christ, which he undertook to accomplish; which was with him and before him, when he came into this world, and was his meat and drink to do; this he never left till he had finished it; so that it succeeded and prospered with him: and this may well be called "the pleasure of the Lord"; it was the good pleasure of his will; it was what he purposed and resolved; what his heart was set upon, and was well pleasing to him, as effected by his Son. Likewise the setting up of the kingdom and interest of Christ in the world, and the continuance and increase of it; the ministry of the word, and the success of that as the means thereof, may be also meant; for the Gospel will be preached, and a Gospel church still continued, until all the elect of God are gathered in.

4. HENRY, “In the foregoing verses the prophet had testified very particularly of the sufferings of Christ, yet mixing some hints of the happy issue of them; here he again mentions his sufferings, but largely foretels the glory that should follow. We may observe, in these verses, I. The services and sufferings of Christ's state of humiliation. Come, and see how he loved us, see what he did for us. 1. He submitted to the frowns of Heaven (Isa_53:10): Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, to put him to pain, or torment, or grief. The scripture nowhere says that Christ is his sufferings underwent the wrath of God; but it says here, (1.) That the Lord bruised him, not only permitted men to bruise him, but awakened his own sword against him, Zec_13:7. They esteemed him smitten of God for some very great sin of his own (Isa_53:4); now it was true that he was smitten of God, but it was for our sin; the Lord bruised him, for he did not spare him, but delivered him up for us all, Rom_8:32. He it was that put the bitter cup into his hand, and obliged him to drink it (Joh_18:11), having laid upon him our iniquity. He it was that made him sin and a curse for us, and turned to ashes all his burnt-offering, in token of the acceptance of it, Psa_20:3. (2.) That he bruised him so as to put him to grief. Christ accommodated himself to this dispensation, and received the impressions of grief from his Father's delivering him up; and he was troubled to such a degree that it put him into an agony, and he began to be amazed and very heavy. (3.) It pleased the Lord to do this. He determined to do it; it was the result of an eternal counsel; and he delighted in it, as it was an effectual method for the salvation of man and the securing and advancing of the honour of God. 5. JAMISON. “Transition from His humiliation to His exaltation. pleased the Lord — the secret of His sufferings. They were voluntarily borne by Messiah, in order that thereby He might “do Jehovah’s will” (Joh_6:38; Heb_10:7, Heb_10:9), as to man’s redemption; so at the end of the verse, “the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.” bruise — (see Isa_53:5); Gen_3:15, was hereby fulfilled, though the Hebrew word for “bruise,” there, is not the one used here. The word “Himself,” in Matthew, implies a personal bearing on Himself of our maladies, spiritual and physical, which included as a consequence His ministration to our bodily ailments: these latter are the reverse side of sin; His bearing on Him our spiritual malady involved with it His bearing sympathetically, and healing, the outward: which is its fruits and its type. Hengstenberg rightly objects to Magee’s translation, “taken away,” instead of “borne,” that the parallelism to “carried” would be destroyed. Besides, the Hebrew word elsewhere, when connected with sin, means to bear it and its punishment (Eze_18:20). Matthew, elsewhere, also sets forth His vicarious atonement (Mat_20:28). when thou, etc. — rather, as Margin, “when His soul (that is, He) shall have made an offering,” etc. In the English Version the change of person is harsh: from Jehovah, addressed in

the second person (Isa_53:10), to Jehovah speaking in the first person in Isa_53:11. The Margin rightly makes the prophet in the name of Jehovah Himself to speak in this verse. offering for sin — (Rom_3:25; 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:10). his seed — His spiritual posterity shall be numerous (Psa_22:30); nay, more, though He must die, He shall see them. A numerous posterity was accounted a high blessing among the Hebrews; still more so, for one to live to see them (Gen_48:11; Psa_128:6). prolong ... days — also esteemed a special blessing among the Jews (Psa_91:16). Messiah shall, after death, rise again to an endless life (Hos_6:2; Rom_6:9). prosper — (Isa_52:13, Margin).

6. K&D, “The last turn in the prophecy, which commences here, carries out Isa_53:6 still further, and opens up the background of His fate. The gracious counsel of God for our salvation was accomplished thus. “And it pleased Jehovah to bruise Him, to afflict Him with disease; if His soul would pay a trespass-offering, He should see posterity, should live long days, and the purpose of Jehovah should prosper through His hand.” ‫ ֶה ֱח ִלי‬cannot possibly be equivalent to +ִ‫ה ָחלי‬, ֶ as Hitzig supposes. An article appended to a noun never obliterates the fundamental character of its form (not even in ‫ץ‬+ֶ‫) ָה‹ר‬. Nor does Böttcher's suggestion, that we should read ‫ֶה ָח ִלי‬ as an accusative of more precise definition, commend itself; for what would the article do in that case? It is the hiphil of ‫ח ָלה‬, ָ like the Syriac agil from gelo; or rather, as even in Syriac this ‫ )גְ ִלי‬is equivalent to ‫)גְ ִליא‬, of ‫ח ָלא‬, ָ 2Ch_16:12 (cf., ‫ם‬+ִ‫) ַ‚ ֲחלוּאי‬, like ‫ ֶה ֲח ִטי‬in 2Ki_13:6 and Jer_32:35, from ‫ח ָטא‬. ָ ‫ ַ€ ְ`אוֹ‬is placed under ‫)€ ֶכא‬ ֶ (= ‫ ְכאוֹ‬+ַ€ with Dag. dirimens) in Gesenius' Lexicon; but this substantive is a needless fiction. ‫ דכאו‬is an inf. piel: conterere eum (Jerome), not καθαρίσαι+α9τόν (lxx from ‫)€ ָכא‬ ְ = ‫)זָ ָכה‬. According to Mic_6:13 (+ָ‫ך‬+ֶ‫ ַה`וֹת‬+ִ‫ה ֱח ֵליתי‬, ֶ I hurt to smite thee, i.e., I smite thee with a painful blow), ‫ ַד ְ`אוֹ ֶה ֱח ִלי‬are apparently connected, in the sense of “And it pleased Jehovah to bruise Him painfully.” But both logically and syntactically this would require the opposite construction, viz., ‫החלי דכאו‬. ‫ ַ€ ְ`אוֹ‬must therefore be an infinitive, depending upon ‫ץ‬+ֵ‫ ָחפ‬, according to Job_33:32 (= ε9δόκησε; the lxx thoughtlessly renders it βούλεται). The infinitive construction is then changed into the finite; for even ‫ החלי‬is subordinate to ‫חפץ‬, as in Hos_5:11 (cf., Isa_42:21; Ges. §142, 3); “he would, made ill,” being equivalent to “he would make ill,” i.e., he would plunge into distress. There is no necessity to repeat ‫ דכאו‬after ‫החלי‬, in the sense of “he caused sore evil therewith,” viz., with the ‫דכאו‬. It was men who inflicted upon the Servant of God such crushing suffering, such deep sorrow; but the supreme causa efficiens in the whole was God, who made the sin of men subservient to His pleasure, His will, and predetermined counsel. The suffering of His Servant was to be to Him the way to glory, and this way of His through suffering to glory was to lead to the establishment of a church of the redeemed, which would spring from Him; in other words, it would become the commencement of that fulfilment of the divine plan of salvation which He, the ever-living, ever-working One, would carry out to completion. We give up the idea that ‫ ָ‚ ִשׂים‬is to be taken as addressed by Jehovah to “His Servant.” The person acting is the Servant, and it is to Jehovah that the action refers. But Hofmann's present view, viz., that tası̄m is addressed to the people, is still less admissible. It is the people who are speaking here;

and although the confession of the penitent Israel runs on from Isa_53:11 (where the confessing retrospective view of the past becomes prospective and prophetic glance at the future) in a direct prophetic tone, and Isa_53:10 might form the transition to this; yet, if the people were addressed in this word tası̄m, it would be absolutely necessary that it should be distinctly mentioned in this connection. And is it really Israel which makes the soul of the Servant an 'asha

m, and not rather the Servant Himself? No doubt it is true, that if nothing further were stated here than that “the people made the life of the Servant of God an 'asham, inasmuch as it treated Him just as if it had a pricking in its conscience so long as it suffered Him to live,” - which is a natural sequel in Hofmann's case to his false assumption, that the passion described in Isa_53:1-12 was merely the culminating point in the sufferings which the Servant was called to endure as a prophet, whereas the prophet falls into the background here behind the sacrifice and the priest - we should no doubt have one scriptural testimony less to support the satisfactio vicaria. (Note: In the first edition of Hofmann's Schriftbeweis (i. 2, 137), in which he regarded ta

sı̄m as addressed to God, he set aside the orthodox view with the remark, that God Himself makes good the injury that men have done to Him by giving up the life of His Servant. In the second edition (i. 2, 208) he supposes the people to be addressed, and it is therefore the people who make the Servant's life an 'asham. The first edition contained the following correct definition of 'asham: “In general, it denotes what one person pays to make good an injury done by him to another.” The exposition which follows above will show how we are forced to adopt the orthodox view, if we adhere to this definition and regard the Servant Himself as presenting the 'asham.) But if we adopt the following rendering, which is the simplest, and the one least open to exception: if His soul offered (placed, i.e., should have placed; cf., Job_14:14, si mortuus fuerit) an 'asham - it is evident that 'asham has here a sacrificial meaning, and indeed a very definite one, inasmuch as the 'asham (the trespass-offering) was a sacrifice, the character of which was very sharply defined. It is self-evident, however, that the 'asham paid by the soul of the Servant must consist in the sacrifice of itself, since He pays it by submitting to a violent death; and a sacrifice presented by the nephesh (the soul, the life, the very self) must be not only one which proceeds from itself, but one which consists in itself. If, then, we would understand the point of view in which the self-sacrifice of the Servant of God is placed when it is called an 'asham, we must notice very clearly the characteristic distinction between this kind of sacrifice and every other. Many of the ritual distinctions, however, may be indicated superficially, inasmuch as they have no bearing upon the present subject, where we have to do with an antitypical and personal sacrifice, and not with a typical and animal one. The 'asham was a sanctissimum, like that of the sin-offering (Lev_6:10, Lev_6:17, and Lev_14:13), and according to Lev_7:7 there was “one law” for them both. This similarity in the treatment was restricted simply to the fact, that the fat portions of the trespass-offering, as well as of the sin-offering, were placed upon the altar, and that the remainder, as in the case of those sin-offerings the blood of which was not taken into the interior of the holy place, was assigned to the priests and to the male members of the priestly families (see Lev_6:22; Lev_7:6). There were the following points of contrast, however, between these two kinds of sacrifice: (1.) The material of the sin-offerings varied considerably, consisting sometimes of a bullock, sometimes of a pair of doves, and even of meal without oil or incense;

whereas the trespass-offering always consisted of a ram, or at any rate of a male sheep. (2.) The choice of the victim, and the course adopted with its blood, was regulated in the case of the sinoffering according to the condition of the offerer; but in the case of the trespass-offering they were neither of them affected by this in the slightest degree. (3.) Sin-offerings were presented by the congregation, and upon holy days, whereas trespass-offerings were only presented by individuals, and never upon holy days. (4.) In connection with the trespass-offering there was none of the smearing of the blood (nethı̄nah) or of the sprinkling of the blood (hazza'ah) connected with the sin-offering, and the pouring out of the blood at the foot of the altar (shephı̄khah) is never mentioned.The ritual for the blood consisted purely in the swinging out of the blood (zerı̄qah), as in the case of the whole offering and of the peace-offerings. There is only one instance in which the blood of the trespass-offering is ordered to be smeared, viz., upon certain portions of the body of the leper (Lev_14:14), for which the blood of the sin-offering that was to be applied exclusively to the altar could not be used. And in general we find that, in the case of the trespass-offering, instead of the altar-ritual, concerning which the law is very brief (Lev_7:1-7), other acts that are altogether peculiar to it are brought prominently into the foreground (Lev_5:14.; Num_5:5-8). These are all to be accounted for from the fact that a trespass-offering was to be presented by the man who had unintentionally laid hands upon anything holy, e.g., the tithes or first-fruits, or who had broken any commandment of God “in ignorance” (if indeed this is to be taken as the meaning of the expression “and wist it not” in Lev_5:17-19); also by the man who had in any way defrauded his neighbour (which was regarded as unfaithfulness towards Jehovah), provided he anticipated it by a voluntary confession - this included the violation of another's conjugal rights in the case of a bondmaid (Lev_19:20-22); also by a leper or a Nazarite defiled by contact with a corpse, at the time of their purification, because their uncleanness involved the neglect and interruption of the duties of worship which they were bound to observe. Wherever a material restitution was possible, it was to be made with the addition of a fifth; and in the one case mentioned in Lev_19:20-22, the trespass-offerings was admissible even after a judicial punishment had been inflicted. But in every case the guilty person had to present the animal of the trespass-offering “according to thy valuation, O priest, in silver shekels,” i.e., according to the priests' taxation, and in holy coin. Such was the prominence given to the person of the priest in the ritual of the trespass-offering. In the sin-offering the priest is always the representative of the offerer; but in the trespassoffering he is generally the representative of God. The trespass-offering was a restitution or compensation made to God in the person of the priest, a payment or penance which made amends for the wrong done, a satisfactio in a disciplinary sense. And this is implied in the name; for just as ‫ ַח ָ®את‬denotes first the sin, then the punishment of the sin and the expiation of the sin, and hence the sacrifice which cancels the sin; so 'asham signifies first the guilt or debt, then the compensation or penance, and hence (cf., Lev_5:15) the sacrifice which discharges the debt or guilt, and sets the man free. Every species of sacrifice had its own primary idea. The fundamental idea of the ‛olah (burntoffering) was oblatio, or the offering of worship; that of the shelamı̄m (peace-offerings), conciliatio, or the knitting of fellowship that of the minchah (meat-offering), donatio, or sanctifying consecration; that of the chatta'th (sin-offering), expiatio, or atonement; that of the 'a

sham (trespass-offering), mulcta (satisfactio), or a compensatory payment. The self-sacrifice of the Servant of Jehovah may be presented under all these points of view. It is the complete antitype, the truth, the object, and the end of all the sacrifices. So far as it is the antitype of the “whole offering,” the central point in its antitypical character is to be found in the offering of His

entire personality (προσφορŽ+τοL+σώµατος, Heb_10:10) to God for a sweet smelling savour (Eph_5:2); so far as it is the antitype of the sin-offering, in the shedding of His blood (Heb_9:13-14), the “blood of sprinkling” (Heb_12:24; 1Pe_1:2); so far as it is the antitype of the shelamı̄m, and especially of the passover, in the sacramental participation in His one selfsacrifice, which He grants to us in His courts, thus applying to us His own redeeming work, and confirming our fellowship of peace with God (Heb_13:10; 1Co_5:7), since the shelamı̄m derive their name from shalom, pax, communio; so far as it is the antitype of the trespass-offering, in the equivalent rendered to the justice of God for the sacrileges of our sins. The idea of compensatory payment, which Hofmann extends to the whole sacrifice, understanding by kipper the covering of the guilt in the sense of a debt (debitum), is peculiar to the 'asham; and at the same time an idea, which Hofmann cannot find in the sacrifices, is expressed here in the most specific manner, viz., that of satisfaction demanded by the justice of God, and of paena outweighing the guilt contracted (cf., nirtsah, Isa_40:2); in other words, the idea of satisfactio vicaria in the sense of Anselm is brought out most distinctly here, where the soul of the Servant of God is said to present such an atoning sacrifice for the whole, that is to say, where He offers Himself as such a sacrifice by laying down the life so highly valued by God (Isa_42:1; Isa_49:5). As the verb most suitable to the idea of the 'asham the writer selects the verb sı̄m, which is generally used to denote the giving of a pledge (Job_17:3), and is therefore the most suitable word for every kind of satisfactio that represents a direct solutio. The apodoses to “if His soul shall have paid the penalty (paenam or mulctam)” are expressed in the future, and therefore state what would take place when the former should have been done. He should see posterity (vid., Gen_50:23; Job_42:16), i.e., should become possessed of a large family of descendants stretching far and wide. The reference here is to the new “seed of Israel,” the people redeemed by Him, the church of the redeemed out of Israel and all nations, of which He would lay the foundation. Again, He should live long days, as He says in Rev_1:18, “I was dead, and, behold, I am alive for evermore.” (Note: Knobel observes here: “The statement that a person first offers himself as a trespass-offering, and then still lives for a long time, and still continues working, is a very striking one; but it may be explained on the ground that the offerer is a plurality.” But how are we to explain the striking expression in our creed, “rose again from the dead?”) Thirdly, the pleasure of Jehovah should prosper “in His hand,” i.e., through the service of His mediation, or (according to the primary meaning of tsalach) should go on advancing incessantly, and pressing on to the final goal. His self-sacrifice, therefore, merely lays the foundation for a progressively self-realizing “pleasure of the Lord,” i.e., (cf., Isa_44:28) for the realization of the purpose of God according to His determinate counsel, the fuller description of which we had in chapters 42 and 49, where it was stated that He should be the mediator of a new covenant, and the restorer of Israel, the light of the Gentiles and salvation of Jehovah even to the ends of the earth.

7. MACLAREN, “THE SUFFERING SERVANT—IV We have seen a distinct progress of thought in the preceding verses. There was first the outline of the sorrows and rejection of the Servant; second, the profound explanation of these as being for us; third, the sufferings, death and burial of the Servant.

We have followed Him to the grave. What more can there be to be said? Whether the Servant of the Lord be an individual or a collective or an ideal, surely all fitness of metaphor, all reality of fact would require that His work should be represented as ending with His life, and that what might follow His burial should be the influence of His memory, the continued operation of the principles He had set agoing and so on, but nothing more. Now observe that, however we may explain the fact, this is the fact to be explained, that there is a whole section, this closing one, devoted to the celebration of His work after His death and burial, and, still more remarkable, that the prophecy says nothing about His activity on the world till after death. In all the former portion there is not a syllable about His doing anything, only about His suffering; and then when He is dead He begins to work. That is the subject of these last three verses, and it would be proper to take them all for our consideration now, but fur two reasons, one, because of their great fulness and importance, and one because, as you will observe, the two latter verses are a direct address of God’s concerning the Servant. The prophetic words, spoken as in his own person, end with Isa_53:10, and, catching up their representations, expanding, defining, glorifying them, comes the solemn thunder of the voice of God. I now deal only with the prophet’s vision of the work of the Servant of the Lord. One other preliminary remark is that the work of the Servant after death is described in these verses with constant and very emphatic reference to His previous sufferings. The closeness of connection between these two is thus thrown into great prominence. I. The mystery of God’s treatment of the sinless Servant. The first clause is to be read in immediate connection with the preceding verse. The Servant was of absolute sinlessness, and yet the Divine Hand crushed and bruised Him. Certainly, if we think of the vehemence of prophetic rebukes, and of the standing doctrine of the Old Testament that Israel was punished for its sin, we shall be slow to believe that this picture of the Sinless One, smitten for the sins of others, can have reference to the nation in any of its parts, or to any one man. However other poetry may lament over innocent sufferers, the Old Testament always takes the ground: ‘Our iniquities, like the wind, have carried us away.’ But mark that here, however understood, the prophet paints a figure so sinless that God’s bruising Him is an outstanding wonder and riddle, only to be solved by regarding these bruises as the stripes by which our sins were healed, and by noting that ‘the pleasure of the Lord’ is carried on through Him, after and through His death. What conceivable application have such representations except to Jesus? We note, then, here:1. The solemn truth that His sufferings were divinely inflicted. That is a truth complementary to the other views in the prophecy, according to which these sufferings are variously regarded as either inflicted by men (‘By oppression and judgment He was taken away’) or drawn on Him by His own sacrificial act (‘His soul shall make an offering for sin’). It was the divine counsel that used men as its instruments, though they were none the less guilty. The hands that ‘crucified and slew’ were no less ‘the hands of lawless men,’ because it was ‘the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ that ‘delivered Him up.’ But a still deeper thought is in these words. For we can scarcely avoid seeing in them a glimpse into that dim region of eclipse and agony of soul from which, as from a cave of darkness, issued that last cry: ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani?’ The bruises inflicted by the God, who made to meet on Him the iniquities of us all, were infinitely more severe than the weales of the soldiers’ rods, or the wounds of the nails that pierced His hands and feet. 2. The staggering mystery of His sinlessness and sufferings. The world has been full from of old of stories of goodness tortured and evil exalted, which have drawn tears and softened hearts, but which have also bewildered men who would fain believe in a righteous Governor and loving Father. But none of these have cast so black a shadow of

suspicion on the government of the world by a good God as does the fate of Jesus, unless it is read in the light of this prophecy. Standing at the cross, faith in God’s goodness and providence can scarcely survive, unless it rises to be faith in the atoning sacrifice of Him who was wounded there for our transgressions. II. The Servant’s work in His sufferings. The margin of the Revised Version gives the best rendering-’His soul shall make an offering for sin.’ The word employed for ‘offering’ means a trespass offering, and carries us at once back to the sacrificial system. The trespass offering was distinguished from other offerings. The central idea of it seems to have been to represent sin or guilt as debt, and the sacrifice as making compensation. We must keep in view the variety of ideas embodied in His sacrifice, and how all correspond to realities in our wants and spiritual experience. Now there are three points here:a. The representation that Christ’s death is a sacrifice. Clearly connecting with whole Mosaic system-and that in the sense of a trespass offering. Christ seems to quote this verse in Joh_10:15, when He speaks of laying down His life, and when He declares that He came to ‘give His life a ransom for many.’ At any rate here is the great word, sacrifice, proclaimed for the first time in connection with Messiah. Here the prophet interprets the meaning of all the types and shadows of the law. That sacrificial system bore witness to deep wants of men’s souls, and prophesied of One in whom these were all met and satisfied. b. His voluntary surrender. He is sacrifice, but He is Priest also. His soul makes the offering, and His soul is the offering and offers itself in concurrence with the Divine Will. It is difficult and necessary to keep that double aspect in view, and never to think of Jesus as an unwilling Victim, nor of God as angry and needing to be appeased by blood. c. The thought that the true meaning of His sufferings is only reached when we contemplate the effects that have flowed from them. The pleasure of the Lord in bruising Him is a mystery until we see how pleasure of the Lord prospers in the hand of the Crucified. III. The work of the Servant after death. Surely this paradox, so baldly stated, is meant to be an enigma to startle and to rouse curiosity. This dead Servant is to see of the travail of His soul, and to prolong His days. All the interpretations of this chapter which refuse to see Jesus in it shiver on this rock. What a contrast there is between platitudes about the spirit of the nation rising transformed from its grave of captivity (which was only very partially the case), and the historical fulfilment in Jesus Christ! Here, at any rate, hundreds of years before His Resurrection, is a word that seems to point to such a fact, and to me it appears that all fair interpretation is on the side of the Messianic reference. Note the singularity of special points. a. Having died, the Servant sees His offspring. The sacrifice of Christ is the great power which draws men to Him, and moves to repentance, faith, love. His death was the communication of life. Nowhere else in the world’s history is the teacher’s death the beginning of His gathering of pupils, and not only has the dead Servant children, but He sees them. That representation is expressive of the mutual intercourse, strange and deep, whereby we feel that He is truly with us, ‘Jesus Christ, whom having not seen we love.’ b. Having died, the Servant prolongs His days.

He lives a continuous life, without an end, for ever. The best commentary is the word which John heard, as he felt the hand of the Christ laid on his prostrate form: ‘I became dead, and lo, I am alive for evermore.’ c. Having died, the Servant carries into effect the divine purposes. ‘Prosper’ implies progressive advancement. Christ’s Sacrifice carried out the divine pleasure, and by His Sacrifice the divine pleasure is further carried out. If Christ is the means of carrying out the divine purpose, consider what this implies of divinity in His nature, of correspondence between His will and the divine. But Jesus not only carries into effect the divine purpose as a consequence of a past act, but by His present energy this dead man is a living power in the world today. Is He not? The sole explanation of the vitality of Christianity, and the sole reason which makes its message a gospel to any soul, is Christ’s death for the world and present life in the world.

8. CALVIN, “10.Yet Jehovah was pleased to bruise him. This illustrates more fully what I formerly stated in few words, that the Prophet, in asserting Christ’ innocence, aims at something more than to defend him from all reproach. The object therefore is, that we should consider the cause, in order to have experience of the effect; for God appoints nothing at random, and hence it follows that the cause of his death is lawful. We must also keep in view the contrast. In Christ there was no fault; why, then, was the Lord pleased that he should suffer? Because he stood in our room, and in no other way than by his death could the justice of God be satisfied. When he shall have offered his soul as a sacrifice. ‫( אשם‬asham) (54) denotes both sin and the sacrifice which is offered for sin, and is often used in the latter sense in the Scriptures. (Exo_29:14; Eze_45:22) (55) The sacrifice was offered in such a manner as to expiate sin by enduring its punishment and curse. This was expressed by the priests by means of the laying on of hands, as if they threw on the sacrifice the sins of the whole nation. (Exo_29:15) And if a private individual offered a sacrifice, he also laid his hand upon it, as if he threw upon it his own sin. Our sins were thrown upon Christ in such a manner that he alone bore the curse. On this account Paul also calls him a “” or “” “ hath redeemed us from the execration of the law, having been made an execration for us.” (Gal_3:13) He likewise calls him “” “ him who knew no sin hath he made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Co_5:21) And in another passage, “ what was impossible for the law, inasmuch as it was weak on account of the flesh, God did, by sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh liable to sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” (Rom_8:3) What Paul meant by the words “” and “” in these passages is the same as what the Prophet meant by the word ‫אשם‬, (asham.) In short, ‫( אשם‬asham) is equivalent to the Latin word piaculum, (56) an expiatory sacrifice. Here we have a description of the benefit of Christ’ death, that by his sacrifice sins were expiated, and God was reconciled towards men; for such is the import of this word ‫אשם‬, (asham.) Hence it follows that nowhere but in Christ is found expiation and satisfaction for sin. In order to understand this better, we must first know that we are guilty before God, so that we may be accursed and detestable in his

presence. Now, if we wish to return to a state of favor with him, sin must be taken away. This cannot be accomplished by sacrifices contrived according to the fancy of men. Consequently, we must come to the death of Christ; for in no other way can satisfaction be given to God. In short, Isaiah teaches that sins cannot be pardoned in any other way than by betaking ourselves to the death of Christ. If any person think that this language is harsh and disrespectful to Christ, let him descend into himself, and, after a close examination, let him ponder how dreadful is the judgment of God, which could not be pacified but by this price; and thus the inestimable grace which shines forth in making Christ accursed will easily remove every ground of offense. He shall see his seed. Isaiah means that the death of Christ not only can be no hinderance to his having a seed, but will be the cause of his having offspring; that is, because, by quickening the dead, he will procure a people for himself, whom he will afterwards multiply more and more; and there is no absurdity in giving the appellation of Christ’ seed to all believers, who are also brethren, because they are descended from Christ. He shall prolong his days. To this clause some supply the relative ‫( אשר‬asher,) “” “ seed which shall be long lived.” But I expound it in a more simple manner, “ shall not be hindered by his death from prolonging his days, that is, from living eternally.” Some persons, when departing from life, leave children, but children who shall survive them, and who shall live so as to obtain a name only when their fathers are dead. But Christ shall ell joy the society of his children; for he shall not die like other men, but shall obtain eternal life in himself and his children. Thus Isaiah declares that in the head and the members there shall be immortal life. And the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. The word “” often denotes “” as the Lord proclaimed the law “ the hand of Moses.” (Num_36:13) Again, the Lord did this “ the hands of David;“ that is, he made use of David as his minister in that matter. (Ezr_3:10) So also “ the hand of Christ shall prosper the will of God;” that is, the Lord will cause the ministry of Christ to yield its fruit, that it may not be thought that he exposed himself fruitlessly to such terrible sufferings. These few words contain a very rich doctrine, which every reader may draw from them; but we are satisfied with giving a simple exposition of the text. “” is taken in the same acceptation as before; for he makes use of the word ‫( חפף‬chaphetz) by which he means a kind and generous disposition. Two views of God’ kindness are held up for our admiration in this passage; first, that he spared not his only Son, but delivered him for us, that he might deliver us from death; and secondly, that he does not suffer his death to be useless and unprofitable, but causes it to yield very abundant, fruit; for the death of Christ would be of no avail to us, if we did not experience its fruit and efficacy.

(54) ‫( אשם‬asham) primarily signifies a trespass or offense, and secondarily a trespass In the law of Moses it is technically used to designate a certain kind of sacrifice, nearly allied to the ‫( הטאת‬hattath) or sin and yet very carefully distinguished from it, although etymologists have never yet been able to determine the precise distinction, and a learned modern Rabbi, Samuel Luzzatto, expresses his conviction that they differed only in the mode of offering the blood. The word is here used not with spedfie reference to this kind of oblation, but as a generic term for expiatory sacrifice. The use of analogous expressions in the New Testament will be dear, from a comparison of Rom_3:25; 2Co_5:21; 1Jo_2:2; Heb_9:14 In the case last quoted, as in that before us, Christ is represented as offering himself to God.” Alexander (55) In both of the passages quoted by our author, the word is not ‫( אשם‬asham) but ‫( הטאת‬hattath),

which, as appears from the preceding note, is closely analogous. Ed (56) This Latin word, which bore the primary meaning of “ atonement for a transgression,” and the secondary meaning of “ wickedness that requires expiation,” is strikingly analogous to the Hebrew word in question, though the transference of the senses is exactly opposite. “Distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem, Virg. id est, Piacula commissa propter quae expiatio debetur.” Serv. “Piaculum committere “ means literally to “ a sacrifice,” that is, “ commit a crime for which a sacrifice is required.” Ed.

11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e]; by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

1.BARNES, “He shall see of the travail of his soul - This is the language of Yahweh, who is again introduced as speaking. The sense is, he shall see the fruit, or the result of his sufferings, and shall be satisfied. He shall see so much good resulting from his great sorrows; so much happiness, and so many saved, that the benefit shall be an ample compensation for all that he endured. The word rendered here ‘travail’ (‫‛ עמל‬amal), denotes properly labor, toil; wearisome labor; labor and toil which produce exhaustion; and hence, sometimes vexation, sorrow, grief, trouble. It is rendered ‘labor’ Psa_90:10; Psa_105:44; Jer_20:18; Ecc_2:11-20; ‘perverseness’ Num_21:21; sorrow’ Job_3:10; ‘wickedness’ Job_4:8; ‘trouble’ Job_5:6-7; Psa_73:5; ‘mischief’ Job_15:35; Psa_7:13; Psa_10:7-14; Psa_94:20; ‘travail,’ meaning labor, or toil Ecc_4:4-6; ‘grievousness’ Isa_10:1; ‘iniquity’ Hab_1:13; ‘toil’ Gen_41:51; ‘pain’ Psa_25:18; and ‘misery’ Pro_31:7. The word ‘travail’ with us has two senses, first, labor with pain, severe toil; and secondly, the pains of childbirth. The word is used here to denote excessive toil, labor, weariness; and refers to the arduous and wearisome labor and trial involved in the work of redemption, as that which exhausted the powers of the Messiah as a man, and sunk him down to the grave. And shall be satisfied - That is, evidently, he shall be permitted to see so much fruit of his labors and sorrows as to be an ample recompence for all that he has done. It is not improbable

that the image here is taken from a farmer who labors in preparing his soil for the seed, and who waits for the harvest; and who, when he sees the rich and yellow field of grain in autumn, or the wain heavily laden with sheaves, is abundantly satisfied for what he has done. He has pleasure in the contemplation of his labor, and of the result; and he does not regret the wearisome days and the deep anxiety with which he made preparation for the harvest. So with the Redeemer. There will be rich and most ample results for all that he has done. And when he shall look on the multitude that shall be saved; when he shall see the true religion spreading over the world; when he shall behold an immense host which no man can number gathered into heaven; and when he shall witness the glory that shall result to God from all that he has done, he shall see enough to be an ample compensation for all that he has endured, and he shall look on his work and its glorious results with pleasure. We may remark here that this implies that great and most glorious results will come out of this work. The salvation of a large portion of the race, of multitudes which no man can number, will be necessary to be any suitable remuneration for the sufferings of the Son of God. We may be assured that he will be ‘satisfied,’ only when multitudes are saved; and it is, therefore, morally certain that a large portion of the race, taken as a whole, will enter into heaven. Hitherto the number has been small. The great mass have rejected him, and have been lost. But there are brighter times before the church and the world. The pure gospel of the Redeemer is yet to spread around the globe, and it is yet to become, and to be for ages, the religion of the world. Age after age is to roll on when all shall know him and obey him; and in those future times, what immense multitudes shall enter into heaven! So that it may yet be seen, that the number of those who will be lost from the whole human family, compared with those who will be saved, will be no greater in proportion than the criminals in a well-organized community who are imprisoned are, compared with the number of obedient, virtuous, and peaceful citizens. By his knowledge - That is, by the knowledge of him. The idea is, by becoming fully acquainted with him and his plan of salvation. The word knowledge here is evidently used in a large sense to denote all that constitutes acquaintance with him. Thus Paul says Phi_3:10, ‘That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection.’ It is only by the knowledge of the Messiah; by an acquaintance with his character, doctrines, sufferings, death, and resurrection, that anyone can be justified. Thus the Saviour says Joh_17:3, ‘And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ People are to become acquainted with him; with his doctrines, and with his religion, or they can never be regarded and treated as righteous in the sight of a holy God. Shall my righteous servant - On the meaning of the word ‘servant,’ as applied to the Messiah, see the notes at Isa_52:13. The word ‘righteous’ (‫ צדיק‬tsadiyq), Lowth supposes should be omitted. His reasons are: 1. That three manuscripts, two of them ancient, omit it. 2. That it makes a solecism in this place, for, according to the constant usage of the Hebrew language, the adjective, in a phrase of this kind, ought to follow the substantive; and, 3. That it makes the hemistich too long. But none of these reasons are sufficient to justify a change in the text. The phrase literally is, ‘the righteous, my servant;’ and the sense is, evidently, ‘my righteous servant.’ The word righteous, applied to the Messiah, is designed to denote not only his personal holiness, but to have reference to the fact that he would’ make many righteous (‫ יצדיק‬yitseddiyq). It is applicable to him, because he was eminently holy and pure, and because also he was the source of righteousness to others; and in the work of justification it is important in the highest degree to fix the attention on the fact, that he by whom the sinner was to be justified was himself perfectly holy, and able to secure the justification and salvation of all who entrusted their souls to him. No

man could feel secure of salvation unless he could commit his soul to one who was perfectly holy, and able to ‘bring in everlasting righteousness.’ Justify - (‫ יצדיק‬yatsediyq). The word ‫ צדק‬tsadaq is of very frequent occurrence in the Bible; and no word is more important to a correct understanding of the plan of salvation than this, and the corresponding Greek word δικαιm dikaio. On the meaning of the Greek word, see the notes at Rom_1:17. The Hebrew word means to be right, straight, as if spoken of a way Psa_23:3. Hence, 1. To be just, righteous, spoken of God in dispensing justice Psa_55:6; and of laws Psa_19:10. 2. To have a just cause, to be in the right; (a) in a forensic sense Gen_38:26; Job_9:16-20; Job_10:15; Job_13:18; (b) of disputants, to be in the right Job_23:12; (c) to gain one’s cause, to be justified Isa. 43:9-26. In this sense it is now often used in courts of justice, where a man who is charged with crime shows that he did not do the deed, or that having done it he had a right to do it, and the law holds him innocent. 3. To be righteous, upright, good, innocent. In this sense the word is often used in the Bible Job_15:14; Job_23:9; Psa_143:2. But in this sense the Messiah will justify no one. He did not come to declare that men were upright, just, innocent. Nor will he justify them because they can show that they have not committed the offences charged on them, or that they had a right to do what they have done. The whole work of justification through the Redeemer proceeds on the supposition that people are not in fact innocent, and that they cannot vindicate their own conduct. 4. In Hiphil, the word means, to pronounce just, or righteous. In a forensic sense, and as applied to the act of justification before God, it means to declare righteous, or to admit to favor as a righteous person; and in connection with the pardon of sin, to resolve to treat as righteous, or as if the offence had not been committed. It is more than mere pardon; it involves the idea of a purpose to treat as righteous, and to acknowledge as such. It is nor to declare that the person is innocent, or that he is not ill deserving, or that he had a right to do as he had done, or that he has a claim to mercy - for this is not true of any mortal; but it is to pardon, and to accept him as if the offence had not been committed - to regard him in his dealings with him, and treat him ever onward as if he were holy. This sense of the word here is necessary, because the whole passage speaks of his bearing sin, and suffering for others, and thus securing their justification. It does not speak of him as instructing people and thus promoting religion; but it speaks of his dying for them, and thus laying the foundation for their justification. They are justified only in connection with his bearing their iniquities; and this shows that the word is used here in the forensic sense, and denotes that they will be regarded and treated as righteous on account of what he has suffered in their behalf. For he shall bear - On the meaning of the word bear, see the notes at Isa_53:4. Their iniquities - Not that he became a sinner, or that sin can be transferred, which is impossible. Guilt and ill desert are personal qualities, and cannot be transferred from one to another. But the consequences of guilt may pass over to another; the sufferings, which would be a proper expression of the evil of sin, may be assumed by another. And this was done by the Redeemer. He stood between the stroke of justice and the sinner, and received the blow himself. He intercepted, so to speak, the descending sword of justice that would have cut the sinner down, and thus saved him. He thus bore their iniquities; that is, he bore in his own person what would have been a proper expression of the evil of sin if he had been himself the sinner, and had been guilty (see the notes at Isa_53:6). It is in connection with this that people become justified; and it is only by the fact that he has thus borne their iniquities that they can be regarded as righteous in the sight of a holy God. They become interested in his merits just as he became

interested in their iniquities. There is in neither case any transfer of personal properties; but there is in both cases a participation in the consequences or the results of conduct. He endured the consequences or results of sin; we partake of the consequences or the results of his sufferings and death in our behalf. This is the great cardinal doctrine of justification; the peculiarity of the Christian scheme; the glorious plan by which lost people may be saved, and by which the guilty may become pardoned, and be raised up to endless life and glory; the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesia. luther.

2. CLARKE, “Shall be satisfied “And be satisfied” - The Septuagint, Vulgate, Sryiac, and a MS. add the conjunction to the verb, ‫ וישבע‬vaigisba. Shall my righteous servant justify “Shall my servant justify” - Three MSS., (two of them ancient), omit the word ‫ צדיק‬tsaddik; it seems to be only an imperfect repetition, by mistake, of the preceding word. It makes a solecism in this place; for according to the constant usage of the Hebrew language, the adjective, in a phrase of this kind, ought to follow the substantive; and ‫עבדי‬+‫ צדיק‬tsaddik+abdi, in Hebrew, would be as absurd as “shall my servant righteous justify,” in English. Add to this, that it makes the hemistich too long.

3. GILL, “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied,.... "The travail of his soul" is the toil and labour he endured, in working out the salvation of his people; his obedience and death, his sorrows and sufferings; particularly those birth throes of his soul, under a sense of divine wrath, for the allusion is to women in travail; and all the agonies and pains of death which he went through. Now the fruit of all this he sees with inexpressible pleasure, and which gives him an infinite satisfaction; namely, the complete redemption of all the chosen ones, and the glory of the divine perfections displayed therein, as well as his own glory, which follows upon it; particularly this will be true of him as man and Mediator, when he shall have all his children with him in glory; see Heb_12:2. The words are by some rendered, "seeing himself or his soul freed from trouble, he shall be satisfied" (c); so he saw it, and found it, when he rose from the dead, and was justified in the Spirit; ascended to his God and Father, was set down at his right hand, and was made glad with his countenance, enjoying to the full eternal glory and happiness with him: and by others this, "after the travail (d) of his soul, he shall see a seed, and shall be satisfied"; as a woman, after her travail and sharp pains are over, having brought forth a son, looks upon it with joy and pleasure, and is satisfied, and forgets her former pain and anguish; so Christ, after all his sorrows and sufferings, sees a large number of souls regenerated, sanctified, justified, and brought to heaven, in consequence of them, which is a most pleasing and satisfactory sight unto him, By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; Christ is the servant of the Lord; See Gill on Isa_53:1, Isa_49:3, Isa_52:13. He is said to be "righteous", because of the holiness of his nature, and the righteousness of his life as a man; and because of his faithful discharge of his work and office as Mediator; and because he is the author and bringer in of an everlasting righteousness, by which he justifies his people; that is, acquits and absolves them, pronounces them righteous, and frees them from condemnation and death; he is the procuring and meritorious cause of their justification; his righteousness is the matter of it; in him, as their Head, are they justified, and by him the sentence is pronounced: for this is to be understood not

of making men holy and righteous inherently, that is sanctification; nor of a teaching men doctrinally the way and method of justifying men, which is no other than ministers do; but it is a forensic act, a pronouncing and declaring men righteous, as opposed to condemnation: and they are many who are so justified; the many who were ordained to eternal life; the many whose sins Christ bore, and gave his life a ransom for; the many sons that are brought by him to glory. This shows that they are not a few, which serves to magnify the grace of God, exalt the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, and encourage distressed sinners to look to him for justification of life; and yet they are not all men, for all men have not faith, nor are they saved; though all Christ's spiritual seed and offspring shall be justified, and shall glory: and this is "by" or "through his knowledge"; the knowledge of him, of Christ, which is no other than faith in him, by which a man sees and knows him, and believes in him, as the Lord his righteousness; and this agrees with the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith; which is no other than the manifestation, knowledge, sense, and perception of it by faith. For he shall bear their iniquities; this is the reason of Christ's justifying many, the ground and foundation of it; he undertook to satisfy for their sins; these, as before observed, were laid on him; being laid on him, he bore them, the whole of them, and all the punishment due to them; whereby he made satisfaction for them, and bore them away, so as they are to be seen no more; and upon this justification proceeds.

4. HENRY, “He substituted himself in the room of sinners, as a sacrifice. He made his soul an offering for sin; he himself explains this (Mat_20:28), that he came to give his life a ransom for many. When men brought bulls and goats as sacrifices for sin they made them offerings, for they had an interest in them, God having put them under the feet of man. But Christ made himself an offering; it was his own act and deed. We could not put him in our stead, but he put himself, and said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit, in a higher sense than David said, or could say it. “Father, I commit my soul to thee, I deposit it in thy hands, as the life of a sacrifice and the price of pardons.” Thus he shall bear the iniquities of the many that he designed to justify (Isa_53:11), shall take away the sin of the world by taking it upon himself, Joh_1:29. This mentioned again (Isa_53:12): He bore the sin of many, who, if they had borne it themselves, would have been sunk by it to the lowest hell. See how this dwelt upon; for, whenever we think of the sufferings of Christ, we must see him in them bearing our sin.

5. JAMISON. “Jehovah is still speaking. see of the travail — He shall see such blessed fruits resulting from His sufferings as amply to repay Him for them (Isa_49:4, Isa_49:5; Isa_50:5, Isa_50:9). The “satisfaction,” in seeing the full fruit of His travail of soul in the conversion of Israel and the world, is to be realized in the last days (Isa_2:2-4). his knowledge — rather, the knowledge (experimentally) of Him (Joh_17:3; Phi_3:10). my ... servant — Messiah (Isa_42:1; Isa_52:13). righteous — the ground on which He justifies others, His own righteousness (1Jo_2:1). justify — treat as if righteous; forensically; on the ground of His meritorious suffering, not their righteousness. bear ... iniquities — (Isa_53:4, Isa_53:5), as the sinner’s substitute.

6. K&D, “This great work of salvation lies as the great object of His calling in the hand of the deceased and yet eternally living One, and goes on victoriously through His mediation. He now reaps the fruit of His self-sacrifice in a continuous priestly course. “Because of the travail of His soul, He will see, and be refreshed; through His knowledge will He procure justice, my righteous servant, for the many, and will take their iniquities upon Himself.” The prophecy now leaves the standpoint of Israel's retrospective acknowledgment of the long rejected Servant of God, and becomes once more the prophetic organ of God Himself, who acknowledges the servant as His own. The min of ‫ ֵמ ֲע ַמל‬might be used here in its primary local signification, “far away from the trouble” (as in Job_21:9, for example); or the temporal meaning which is derived from the local would be also admissible, viz., “from the time of the trouble,” i.e., immediately after it (as in Psa_73:20); but the causal sense is the most natural, viz., on account of, in consequence of (as in Exo_2:23), which not only separates locally and links together temporarily, but brings into intimate connection. The meaning therefore is, “In consequence of the trouble of His soul (i.e., trouble experienced not only in His body, but into the inmost recesses of His soul), He will see, satisfy Himself.” Hitzig supplies ‫®וֹב‬dַ (Jer_29:32); Knobel connects ‫ב ַד ְע‚וֹ‬, ַ in opposition to the accents (like A. S. Th. Kµπλησθήσεται+Kν+τq+γνώσει+α9τοL), thus: “He looks at His prudent work, and has full satisfaction therewith.” But there is nothing to supply, and no necessity to alter the existing punctuation. The second verb receives its colouring from the first; the expression “He will see, will satisfy Himself,” being equivalent to “He will enjoy a satisfying or pleasing sight” (cf., Psa_17:15), which will consist, as Isa_53:10 clearly shows, in the successful progress of the divine work of salvation, of which He is the Mediator. ‫ בדעתו‬belongs to ‫ יַ ְצ ִ€יק‬as the medium of setting right (cf., Pro_11:9). This is connected with lʤ in the sense of “procure justice,” like +ְ‫( ָר ָפא ל‬Isa_6:10); ‫ ֵהנִ יַ ח ל‬in Isa_14:3; Isa_28:12 (cf., Dan_11:33, ‫ל‬+ְ ‫ ֵה ִבין‬, to procure intelligence; Gen_45:7, +ְ‫ה ֱחיָ ה ל‬, ֶ to prolong life - a usage which leads on to the Aramaean combination of the dative with the accusative, e.g., Job_37:18, compare Job_5:2). Tsaddı̄q ‛abhdı̄ do not stand to one another in the relation of a proper name and a noun in apposition, as Hofmann thinks, nor is this expression to be interpreted according to +ִ‫ ָ€וד‬+ְ‫ך‬+ֶ‫ַה ֶ¨ל‬ (Ges. §113); but “a righteous man, my servant,” with the emphatic prominence given to the attribute (cf., Isa_10:30; Isa_23:12; Psa_89:51), is equivalent to “my righteous servant.' But does ‫ בדעתו‬mean per cognitionem sui, or per cognitionem suam? The former gives a sense which is both doctrinally satisfying and practically correct: the Righteous One makes others partakers of righteousness, through their knowledge of Him, His person, and His work, and (as the biblical ‫יָ ַדע‬, which has reference not only to the understanding, but to personal experience also, clearly signifies) through their entrance into living fellowship with Him. Nearly all the commentators, who understand by the servant of God the Divine Redeemer, give the preference to this explanation (e.g., Vitringa, Hengstenberg, and Stier). But the meaning preferred is not always the correct one. The subjective rendering of the suffix (cf., Pro_22:17) is favoured by Mal_2:7, where it is said that “the priest's lips should keep da‛ath (knowledge);” by Dan_12:3, where faithful teachers are called matsdı̄qe harabbı̄m (they that turn many to righteousness); and by Isa_11:2, according to which “the spirit of knowledge” (rua}ch da‛ath) is one of the seven spirits that descend upon the sprout of Jesse; so that “knowledge” (da‛ath) is represented as equally the

qualification for the priestly, the prophetic, and the regal calling. It is a very unseemly remark, therefore, on the part of a modern commentator, when he speaks of the subjective knowledge of the Servant as “halting weakly behind in the picture, after His sacrificial death has already been described.” We need only recall to mind the words of the Lord in Mat_11:27, which are not only recorded both by the synoptists and by John, but supported by testimony outside the Gospels also: “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Let us remember also, that the Servant of Jehovah, whose priestly mediatorial work is unfolded before us here in chapter 53, upon the ground of which He rises to more than regal glory (Isa_52:15, compare Isa_53:12), is no other than He to whom His God has given the tongue of the learned, “to know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary, i.e., to raise up the wary and heavy laden” (Isa_50:4). He knows God, with whom He stands in loving fellowship; He knows the counsels of His love and the will of His grace, in the fulfilment of which His own life ascends, after having gone down into death and come forth from death; and by virtue of this knowledge, which rests upon His own truest and most direct experience, He, the righteous One, will help “the many,” i.e., the great mass (ha

rabbı̄m as in Dan_9:27; Dan_11:33, Dan_11:39; Dan_12:3; cf., Exo_23:2, where rabbı̄m is used in the same sense without the article), hence all His own nation, and beyond that, all mankind (so far as they were susceptible of salvation = τος+πολλος, Rom_5:19, cf., πολλmν, Mat_26:28), to a right state of life and conduct, and one that should be well-pleasing to God. The primary reference is to the righteousness of faith, which is the consequence of justification on the ground of His atoning work, when this is believingly appropriated; but the expression also includes that righteousness of life, which springs by an inward necessity out of those sanctifying powers, that are bound up with the atoning work which we have made our own (see Dan_9:24). The ancients recognised this connection between the justitia fidei et vitae better than many of the moderns, who look askance at the Romish justitia infusa, and therewith boast of advancing knowledge. Because our righteousness has its roots in the forgiveness of sins, as an absolutely unmerited gift of grace without works, the prophecy returns once more from the justifying work of the Servant of God to His sin-expunging work as the basis of all righteousness: “He shall bear their iniquities.” This yisbol (He shall bear), which stands along with futures, and therefore, being also future itself, refers to something to be done after the completion of the work to which He is called in this life (with which Hofmann connects it), denotes the continued operation of His sebhalam (Isa_53:4), through His own active mediation. His continued lading of our trespasses upon Himself is merely the constant presence and presentation of His atonement, which has been offered once for all. The dead yet living One, because of His one self-sacrifice, is an eternal Priest, who now lives to distribute the blessings that He has acquired.

7. CALVIN, “11.From the labor of his soul he shall see. Isaiah continues the same subject. He declares that Christ, after having suffered, shall obtain the fruit of his death in the salvation of men. When he says, “ shall see,” we must supply the words, “ and Efficacy.” This is full of the sweetest consolation; for Isaiah could not have better expressed the infinite love of Christ toward us than by declaring that he takes the highest delight in our salvation, and that he rests in it as the fruit of his labors, as he who has obtained his wish rests in that which he most ardently desired; for no person can be said to be satisfied but he who has obtained what he wished so earnestly as to disregard everything else and be satisfied with this alone. By his doctrine, or by the knowledge of him. He now points out the way and method by which we

experience the power and efficacy of the death of Christ, and obtain the benefit of it. That method is “ knowledge of him.” I acknowledge that the word ‫( דעת‬dagnath) may be taken either in an active or a passive sense, as denoting either “ knowledge of him” or “ knowledge.” In whichsoever of these senses it is taken, we shall easily understand the Prophet’ meaning; and the Jews will not be able to practice such impudent sophistry as to prevent us from extorting from them a reluctant acknowledgment of what is here asserted, that Christ. is the only teacher and author of righteousness. Shall justify many. By the word “” he points out the effect of this teaching. Thus, men are not only taught righteousness in the school of Christ, but are actually justified. And this is the difference between the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of the Law; for although the Law shows what it is to be righteous, yet Paul affirms that it is impossible that righteousness should be obtained by it, and experience proves the same thing; for the Law is a mirror in which we behold our own unrighteousness. (Rom_3:20.) Now, the doctrine which Christ teaches, as to obtaining righteousness, is nothing else than “ knowledge of him;” and this is faith, when we embrace the benefit of his death and fully rely on him. Philosophers have laid down many excellent precepts, which, as they imagine, contain righteousness; but they never could bestow it on any man; (57) for who ever obtained by their rules the power of living uprightly? And it is of no advantage to know what is true righteousness, if we are destitute of it. To say nothing about philosophers, the Law itself, which contains the most perfect rule of life, could not (as we have said) bestow this; not that there was any defect in it, for Moses testified (Deu_30:19) that “ had set before them good and evil, life and death;” but that the corruption of our nature is such that the Law could not suffice for procuring righteousness. In like manner Paul teaches (Rom_8:3) that this weakness proceeds “ our flesh,” and not from the Law; for nature prompts us in another direction, and our lusts burst forth with greater violence, like wild and furious beasts, against the command of God. The consequence is, that “ law worketh wrath,” instead of righteousness. (Rom_4:15) The law therefore holds all men as convicted, and, after having made known their sin, renders men utterly inexcusable. We must therefore seek another way of righteousness, namely, in Christ, whom the law also pointed out as its end. (Rom_10:3.) “ righteousness of the law was of this nature: He who doeth these things shall live by them.” (Lev_18:5; Gal_3:12.) But nobody has done them, and therefore another righteousness is necessary, which Paul also proves (Rom_10:8) by a quotation from Moses himself, “ word is nigh, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach.” (Deu_30:14) By this doctrine, therefore, we are justified; not by the bare and simple doctrine, but inasmuch as it exhibits the benefit of the death of Christ, by which atonement is made for our sins, and we are reconciled to God. (Rom_5:10.) For, if we embrace this benefit by faith, we are reckoned righteous before God. For he shall bear their iniquities. The Prophet explains his meaning by pointing out what this doctrine contains; for these two clauses agree well: “ shall justify by his doctrine,” or “ the knowledge of him,” inasmuch as “ shall bear their iniquities.” Having been once made a sacrifice for us, he now invites us by the doctrine of the Gospel, to receive the fruit of his death; and thus the death of Christ is the substance of the doctrine, in order that he may justify us. To this saying of the Prophet Paul fully subscribes; for, after having taught that “ was an expiatory sacrifice for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” he at the same time adds, “ are ambassadors for Christ, and beseech you, be ye reconciled to God.” (2Co_5:20) My righteous servant. He shows that Christ justifies us, not only as he is God, but also as he is man; for in our flesh he procured righteousness for us. He does not say, “ Son,” but “ servant,” that we may not only view him as God, but may contemplate his human nature, in which he performed that obedience by which we are acquitted before God. The foundation of our salvation is this, that he offered himself as a sacrifice;

and, in like manner, he himself declares, “ their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be holy.” (Joh_17:19)

(57) “Mais ils n’ jamais peu faire un seul hornroe juste.” “ they never could make one man righteous.”

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g] and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h] because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

1.BARNES, “Therefore will I divide him - I will divide for him (‫ לו‬lo). This verse is designed to predict the triumphs of the Messiah. It is language appropriate to him as a prince, and designed to celebrate his glorious victories on earth. The words here used are taken from the custom of distributing the spoils of victory after a battle, and the idea is, that as a conqueror takes valuable spoils, so the Messiah would go forth to the spiritual conquest of the world, and subdue it to himself. Rosenmuller renders this, Dispertsam ei multos - ‘I will divide to him the many;’ that is, he shall have many as his portion. Hengstenberg, ‘I will give him the mighty for a portion.’ So the Septuagint, ‘Therefore he shall inherit (κληρονοµήσει kleronomesei) many.’ So

Lowth, ‘Therefore will I distribute to him the many for his portion.’ But it seems to me that the sense is, that his portion would be with the mighty or the many (‫ ברבים‬barabbı@ym) and that this interpretation is demanded by the use of the preposition ‫( ב‬b) in this case, and by the corresponding word ‫' את‬eth, prefixed to the word ‘mighty.’ The sense, according to this, is, that the spoils of his conquests would be among the mighty or the many; that is, that his victories would not be confined to a few in number, or to the feeble, but the triumphs of his conquests would extend afar, and be found among the potentates and mighty people of the earth. The word rendered here ‘the great’ (‫ רבים‬rabbı@ym), may mean either many or powerful and great. The parallelism here with the word ‫‛ עצוּמים‬a}tsumı@ym (the mighty), seems to demand that it be understood as denoting the great, or the powerful, though it is differently rendered by the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Chaldee, by Castellio, and by Junius and Tremellius. The sense is, I think, that his conquests would be among the great and the mighty. He would overcome his most formidable enemies, and subdue them to himself. Their most valued objects; all that constituted their wealth, their grandeur, and their power, would be among the spoils of his victories. It would not be merely his feeble foes that would be subdued, but it would be the mighty, and there would be no power, however formidable, that would be able to resist the triumphs of his truth. The history of the gospel since the coming of the Redeemer shows how accurately this has been fulfilled. Already he has overcome the mighty, and the spoils of the conquerors of the world have been among the trophies of his victories. The Roman empire was subdued; and his conquests were among these conquerors, and his were victories over the subduers of nations. It will be still more signally fulfilled in coming times, when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever Rev_11:15. And he shall divide the spoil with the strong - And with the mighty, or with heroes, shall he divide the plunder. The idea here is not materially different from that which was expressed in the former member of the sentence. It is language derived from the conquests of the warrior, and means that his victories would be among the great ones of the earth; his conquests over conquerors. It was from language such as this that the Jews obtained the notion, that the Messiah would be a distinguished conqueror, and hence, they looked forward to one who as a warrior would carry the standard of victory around the world. But it is evident that it may be applied with much higher beauty to the spiritual victories of the Redeemer, and that it expresses the great and glorious truth that the conquests of the true religion will yet extend over the most formidable obstacles on the earth. Because he hath poured out his soul unto death - His triumphs would be an appropriate reward for his sufferings, his death, and his intercession. The expression ‘he poured out his soul,’ or his life (‫ נפשׁו‬napesho; see the notes at Isa_53:10), is derived from the fact that the life was supposed to reside in the blood (see the notes at Rom_3:25); and that when the blood was poured out, the life was supposed to flow forth with it. As a reward for his having thus laid down his life, he would extend his triumphs over the whole world, and subdue the most mighty to himself. And he was numbered with the transgressors - That is, he shall triumph because he suffered himself to be numbered with the transgressors, or to be put to death with malefactors. It does not mean that he was a transgressor, or in any way guilty; but that in his death he was in fact numbered with the guilty, and put to death with them. In the public estimation, and in the sentence which doomed him to death, he was regarded and treated as if he had been a transgressor. This passage is expressly applied by Mark to the Lord Jesus Mar_15:28.

And he bare the sin of many - (‫ נשׂא‬nas'a'). On the meaning of this word ‘bare,’ see the notes at Isa_53:4; and on the doctrine involved by his bearing sin, see the note at Isa_53:4-6, Isa_53:10. The idea here is, that he would triumph because he had thus borne their sins. As a reward for this God would bless him with abundant spiritual triumphs among people, and extend the true religion afar. And made intercession for the transgressors - On the meaning of the word rendered here ‘made intercession’ (‫ יפגיע‬yapegı@y‛a), see the notes at Isa_53:6, where it is rendered ‘hath laid on him.’ The idea is. that of causing to meet, or to rush; and then to assail, as it were, with prayers, to supplicate for anyone, to entreat (see Isa_59:16; Jer_36:25). It may not refer here to the mere act of making prayer or supplication, but rather perhaps to the whole work of the intercession, in which the Redeemer, as high priest, presents the merit of his atoning blood before the throne of mercy and pleads for people (see Rom_8:34; Heb_7:25; 1Jo_2:1). This is the closing part of his work in behalf of his people and of the world; and the sense here is, that he would be thus blessed with abundant and wide extended triumph, because he made intercession. All his work of humiliation, and all his toils and sufferings, and all the merit of his intercession, became necessary in order to his triumph, and to the spread of the true religion. In consequence of all these toils, and pains, and prayers, God would give him the victory over the world, and extend his triumphs around the globe. Here the work of the Mediator in behalf of human beings will cease. There is to be no more suffering, and beyond his intercessions he will do nothing for them. He will come again indeed, but he will come to judge the world, not to suffer, to bleed, to die, and to intercede. All his future conquests and triumphs will be in consequence of what he has already done; and they who are not saved because he poured out his soul unto death, and bare the sin of many, and made intercession, will not be saved at all. There will be no more sacrifice for sin, and there will be no other advocate and intercessor. We have now gone through perhaps at tedious length, this deeply interesting and most important portion of the Bible. Assuming now (see the remarks prefixed to Isa_52:13 ff) that this was written seven hundred years before the Lord Jesus was born, there are some remarks of great importance to which we may just refer in the conclusion of this exposition. 1. The first is, the minute accuracy of the statements here as applicable to the Lord Jesus. While it is apparent that there has been no other being on earth, and no “collective body of men,” to whom this can be applied, it is evident that the whole statement is applicable to the Redeemer. It is not the general accuracy to which I refer; it is not that there is some resemblance in the outline of the prediction; it is, that the statement is minutely accurate. It relates to his appearance, his rejection, the manner of his death, his being pierced, his burial. It describes, as minutely as could have been done after the events occurred, the manner of his trial of his rejection, the fact of his being taken from detention and by a judicial sentence, and the manner in which it was designed that he should be buried, and yet the remarkable fact that this was prevented, and that he was interred in the manner in which the rich were buried (see the notes at Isa_53:2-3, Isa_53:7-10). 2. This coincidence could never have occurred if the Lord Jesus had been an impostor. To say nothing of the difficulty of attempting to fulfill a prediction by imposture and the general failure in the attempt, there are many things here which would have rendered any attempt of this kind utterly hopeless. A very large portion of the things referred to in this chapter were circumstances over which an impostor could have no control and which he could bring about by no contrivance, no collusion, and no concert. They depended on the arrangements of Providence, and on the voluntary actions of people, in such a way that he could not affect them. How could he so order it as to grow up as a root out of a dry ground; to be despised and rejected of men; to be taken from detention and from a judicial sentence though innocent; to have it designed that

be should be buried with malefactors, and to be numbered with transgressors, and yet to be rescued by a rich man, and placed in his tomb? This consideration becomes more striking when it is remembered that not a few people claimed to be the Messiah, and succeeded in imposing on many, and though they were at last abandoned or punished, yet between their lives and death, and the circumstances here detailed, there is not the shadow of a coincidence. It is to be remembered also that an impostor would not have aimed at what would have constituted a fulfillment of this prophecy. Notwithstanding the evidence that it refers to the Messiah, yet it is certain also that the Jews expected no such personage as that here referred to. They looked for a magnificent temporal prince and conqueror; and an impostor would not have attempted to evince the character, and to go through the circumstances of poverty, humiliation, shame, and sufferings, here described. What impostor ever would have attempted to fulfill a prophecy by subjecting himself to a shameful death? What impostor could have brought it about in this manner if he had attempted it? No; it was only the true Messiah that either would or could have fulfilled this remarkable prophecy. Had an impostor made the effort, he must have failed; and it was not in human nature to attempt it under the circumstances of the case. All the claims to the Messiahship by impostors have been of an entirely different character from that referred to here. 3. We are then prepared to ask an infidel how he will dispose of this prophecy. That it existed seven hundred years before Christ is as certain as that the poems of Homer or Hesiod had an existence before the Christian era; as certain as the existence of any ancient document whatever. It will not do to say that it was forged - for this is not only without proof, but wound destroy the credibility of all ancient writings. It will not do to say that it was the result of natural sagacity in the prophet - for whatever may be said of conjectures about empires and kingdoms, no natural sagacity can tell what will be the character of an individual man, or whether such a man as here referred to would exist at all. It will not do to say that the Lord Jesus was a cunning impostor and resolved to fulfill this ancient writing, and thus establish his claims, for, as we have seen, such an attempt would have belied human nature, and if attempted, could not have been accomplished. It remains then to ask what solution the infidel will give of these remarkable facts. We present him the prophecy - not a rhapsody, not conjecture, not a general statement; but minute, full, clear, unequivocal, relating to points which could not have been the result of conjecture: and over which the individual had no control. And then we present him with the record of the life of Jesus - minutely accurate in all the details of the fulfillment - a coincidence as clear as that between a biography and the original - and ask him to explain it. And we demand a definite and consistent answer to this. To turn away from it does not answer it. To laugh, does not answer it, for there is no argument in a sneer or a jibe. To say that it is not worth inquiry is not true, for it pertains to the great question of human redemption. But if he cannot explain it, then he should admit that it is such a prediction as only God could give, and that Christianity is true. 4. This chapter proves that the Redeemer died as an atoning sacrifice for people. He was not a mere martyr, and he did not come and live merely to set us an example. Of what martyr was the language here ever used, and how could it be used? How could it be said of any martyr that he bore our griefs, that he was bruised for our iniquities, that our sins were made to rush and meet upon him, and that he bare the sin of many? And if the purpose of his coming was merely to teach us the will of God, or to set us an example, why is such a prominence here given to his sufferings in behalf of others? Scarcely an allusion is made to his example, while the chapter is replete with statements of his sufferings and sorrows in behalf of others. It would be impossible to state in more explicit language the truth that he died as a sacrifice for the sins of people; that he suffered to make proper expiation for the guilty. No confession of faith on earth, no creed, no symbol, no standard of doctrine, contains more explicit statements on the subject. And if the language used here does not demonstrate that the Redeemer was an atoning sacrifice, it is impossible to conceive how such a doctrine could be taught or conveyed to people.

5. This whole chapter is exceedingly important to Christians. It contains the most full, continuous statement in the Bible of the design of the Redeemer’s sufferings and death. And after all the light which is shed on the subject in the New Testament; after all the full and clear statements made by the Redeemer and the apostles; still, if we wish to see a full and continuous statement on the great doctrine of the atonement, we naturally recur to this portion of Isaiah. If we wish our faith to be strengthened, and our hearts warmed by the contemplalion of his sufferings, we shall find no part of the Bible better adapted to it than this. It should not only be the subject of congratulation, but of much fervent prayer. No man can study it too profoundly. No one can feel too much anxiety to understand it. Every verse, every phrase, every word should be pondered until it fixes itself deep in the memory, and makes an eternal impression on the heart. If a man understands this portion of the Bible, he will have a correct view of the plan of salvation. And it should be the subject of profound and prayerful contemplation until the heart glows with love to that merciful God who was willing to give the Redeemer to such sorrow, and to the gracious Saviour who, for our sins, was willing to pour out his soul unto death. I bless God that I have been permitted to study it; and I pray that this exposition - cold and imperfect as it is - may be made the means yet of extending correct views of the design of the Redeemer’s death among his friends, and of convincing those who have doubted the truth of the Bible, that a prophecy like this demonstrates that the book in which it occurs must be from God.

2. CLARKE, “He bare the sin of many - ‫ רבים‬rabbim, the multitudes, the many that were made sinners by the offenses of one; i.e., the whole human race; for all have sinned - all have fallen; and for all that have sinned, and for all that have fallen, Jesus Christ died. The ‫רבים‬ rabbim of the prophet answers to the οY+πολλοι, of the apostle, Rom_5:15, Rom_5:19. As the πολλ οι of the apostle means all that have sinned; so the ‫ רבים‬rabbim of the prophet means those for whom Christ died; i.e., all that have sinned. And made intercession for the transgressors - For ‫ יפגיע‬yaphgia, in the future, a MS. has ‫ הפגיע‬hiphgia, preterite, rather better, as agreeable with the other verbs immediately preceding in the sentence. He made intercession for the transgressors. - This was literally fulfilled at his death, “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do!” Luk_23:34. And to make intercession for transgressors is one part of his mediatorial offlce. Heb_7:25, and Heb_9:24. In this chapter the incarnation, preaching, humiliation, rejection, sufferings, death, atonement, resurrection, and mediation of Jesus Christ are all predicted, together with the prevalence of his Gospel, and the extension of his kingdom through all ages.

3. GILL, “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,.... The great ones of the earth, the kings and princes of the earth: these are the words of God the Father, promising Christ that he shall have as great a part or portion assigned him as any of the mighty monarchs of the world, nay, one much more large and ample; that he would make him higher than the kings of the earth, and give him a name above every name in this world, or that to come; and all this in consequence of his sufferings, and as a reward of them; see Phi_2:8 and whereas the Lord's people are his portion, and with which Christ is well pleased, and greatly delighted,

Deu_32:9, they may be intended here, at least as a part of the portion which Christ has assigned him. For the words may be rendered (e), "therefore will I divide, assign, or give many to him": so the Vulgate Latin version; and which is favoured by the Targum, "therefore will I divide to him the prey of many people;'' and by the Septuagint version, therefore he shall inherit many, or possess many as his inheritance; so the Arabic version. The elect of God were given to Christ, previous to his sufferings and death, in the everlasting council of peace and covenant of grace, to be redeemed and saved by him; and they are given to him, in consequence of them, to believe in him, to be subject to him, and serve him; and so it denotes a great multitude of persons, both among Jews and Gentiles, that should be converted to Christ, embrace him, profess his Gospel, and submit to his ordinances; and which has been true in fact, and took place quickly after his resurrection and ascension. And he shall divide the spoil with the strong; or "the strong as a spoil"; that is, he shall spoil principalities and powers, destroy Satan and his angels, and make an entire conquest of all his mighty and powerful enemies. The Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions, render the words, "he shall divide the spoil of the strong"; of Satan and his principalities; those they make a spoil of he shall take out of their hands, and possess them as his own. The best comment on this version is Luk_11:22. Or rather the words may be rendered, "he shall have or possess for a spoil or prey very many" (f); for the word for "strong" has the signification of a multitude; and so the sense is the same as before, that a great multitude of souls should be taken by Christ, as a prey out of the hands of the mighty, and become his subjects; and so his kingdom would be very large, and he have great honour and glory, which is the thing promised as a reward of his sufferings. Some understand, by the "great" and "strong", the apostles of Christ, to whom he divided the gifts he received when he led captivity captive; to some apostles, some prophets, &c. Eph_4:10, and others the soldiers, among whom his garments were parted; but they are senses foreign from the text. Because he hath poured out his soul unto death; as water is poured out, Psa_22:14 or rather as the wine was poured out in the libations or drink offerings; for Christ's soul was made an offering for sin, as before; and it may be said with respect to his blood, in which is the life, that was shed or poured out for the remission of sin; of which he was emptied, and made bare, as the word (g) signifies, when his hands, feet, and side, were pierced. The phrase denotes the voluntariness of Christ's death, that he freely and willingly laid down his life for his people. And he was numbered with the transgressors; he never was guilty of any one transgression of the law; he indeed appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was calumniated and traduced as a sinner, and a friend of the worst of them; he was ranked among them, and charged as one of them, yet falsely; though, having all the sins of his people upon him, he was treated, even by the justice and law of God, as if he had been the transgressor, and suffered as if he had been one; of which his being crucified between two thieves was a symbolical representation, and whereby this Scripture was fulfilled, Mar_15:28. and he bore the sin on many; everyone of their sins, even the sins of all those whose iniquity was laid on him, of the many chosen in him, and justified by him; See Gill on Isa_53:11 where this is given as the reason for their justification; and here repeated as if done, to show the certainty of it; to raise the attention of it, as being a matter of great importance; see 1Pe_2:24.

And made intercession for the transgressors; as he did upon the cross, even for those that were the instruments of his death, Luk_23:34 and as he now does, in heaven, for all those sinners for whom he died; not merely in a petitionary way, but by presenting himself, blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; pleading the merits of these, and calling for, in a way of justice and legal demand, all those blessings which were stipulated in an everlasting covenant between him and his Father, to be given to his people, in consequence of his sufferings and death; see Rom_8:33.

4. HENRY, “He subjected himself to that which to us is the wages of sin (Isa_53:12): He has poured out his soul unto death, poured it out as water, so little account did he make of it, when the laying of it down was the appointed means of our redemption and salvation. He loved not his life unto the death, and his followers, the martyrs, did likewise, Rev_12:11. Or, rather, he poured it out as a drink-offering, to make his sacrifice complete, poured it out as wine, that his blood might be drink indeed, as his flesh is meat indeed to all believers. There was not only a colliquation of his body in his sufferings (Psa_22:14, I am poured out like water), but a surrender of his spirit; he poured out that, even unto death, though he is the Lord of life. 4. He suffered himself to be ranked with sinners, and yet offered himself to be an intercessor for sinners, Isa_53:12. (1.) It was a great aggravation of his sufferings that he was numbered with transgressors, that he was not only condemned as a malefactor, but executed in company with two notorious malefactors, and he in the midst, as if he had been the worst of the three, in which circumstance of his suffering, the evangelist tells us, this prophecy was fulfilled, Mar_15:27, Mar_15:28. Nay, the vilest malefactor of all, Barabbas, who was a traitor, a thief, and a murderer, was put in election with him for the favour of the people, and carried it; for they would not have Jesus released, but Barabbas. In his whole life he was numbered among the transgressors; for he was called and accounted a sabbath-breaker, a drunkard, and a friend to publicans and sinners. (2.) It was a great commendation of his sufferings, and redounded very much to his honour, that in his sufferings he made intercession for the transgressors, for those that reviled and crucified him; for he prayed, Father, forgive them, thereby showing, not only that he forgave them, but that he was now doing that upon which their forgiveness, and the forgiveness of all other transgressors, were to be founded. That prayer was the language of his blood, crying, not for vengeance, but for mercy, and therein it speaks better things than that of Abel, even for those who with wicked hands shed it. II. The grace and glories of his state of exaltation; and the graces he confers on us are not the least of the glories conferred on him. These are secured to him by the covenant of redemption, which these verses give us some idea of. He promises to make his soul an offering for sin, consents that the Father shall deliver him up, and undertakes to bear the sin of many, in consideration of which the Father promises to glorify him, not only with the glory he had, as God, before the world was (Joh_17:5), but with the glories of the Mediator. 1. He shall have the glory of an everlasting Father. Under this title he was brought into the world (Isa_9:6), and he shall not fail to answer the title when he goes out of the world. This was the promise made to Abraham (who herein was a type of Christ), that he should be the father of many nations and so be the heir of the world, Rom_4:13, Rom_4:17. As he was the root of the Jewish church, and the covenant was made with him and his seed, so is Christ of the universal church and with him and his spiritual seed is the covenant of grace made, which is grounded upon and grafted in the covenant of redemption, which here we have some of the glorious promises of. It is promised, (1.) That the Redeemer shall have a seed to serve him and to bear up his name, Psa_22:30. True believers are the seed of Christ; the Father gave them to him to be so, Joh_17:6. He died to

purchase and purify them to himself, fell to the ground as a corn of wheat, that he might bring forth much fruit, Joh_12:24. The word, that incorruptible see, of which they are born again, is his word; the Spirit, the great author of their regeneration, is his Spirit; and it is his image that is impressed upon them. (2.) That he shall live to see his seed. Christ's children have a living Father, and because he lives they shall live also, for he is their life. Though he died, he rose again, and left not his children orphans, but took effectual care to secure to them the spirit, the blessing, and the inheritance of sons. He shall see a great increase of them; the word is plural, He shall see his seeds, multitudes of them, so many that they cannot be numbered. (3.) That he shall himself continue to take care of the affairs of this numerous family: He shall prolong his days. Many, when they see their seed, their seed's seed, wish to depart in peace; but Christ will not commit the care of his family to any other, no, he shall himself live long, and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, for he ever lives. Some refer it to believers: He shall see a seed that shall prolong its days, agreeing with Psa_89:29, Psa_89:36, His seed shall endure for ever. While the world stands Christ will have a church in it, which he himself will be the life of. (4.) That his great undertaking shall be successful and shall answer expectation: The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. God's purposes shall take effect, and not one iota or tittle of them shall fail. Note, [1.] The work of man's redemption is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, and it is in good hands. It is well for us that it is in his, for our own hands are not sufficient for us, but he is able to save to the uttermost. It is in his hands who upholds all things. [2.] It is the good pleasure of the Lord, which denotes not only his counsel concerning it, but his complacency in it; and therefore God loved him, and was well pleased in him, because he undertook to lay down his life for the sheep. [3.] It has prospered hitherto, and shall prosper, whatever obstructions or difficulties have been, or may be, in the way of it. Whatever is undertaken according to God's pleasure shall prosper, Isa_46:10. Cyrus, a type of Christ, shall perform all God's pleasure (Isa_44:28), and therefore, no doubt, Christ shall. Christ was so perfectly well qualified for his undertaking, and prosecuted it with so much vigour, and it was from first to last so well devised, that it could not fail to prosper, to the honour of his Father and the salvation of all his seed. (5.) That he shall himself have abundant satisfaction in it (Isa_53:11): He shall see of the travail of his sous, and shall be satisfied. He shall see it beforehand (so it may be understood); he shall with the prospect of his sufferings have a prospect of the fruit, and he shall be satisfied with the bargain. He shall see it when it is accomplished in the conversion and salvation of poor sinners. Note, [1.] Our Lord Jesus was in travail of soul for our redemption and salvation, in great pain, but with longing desire to be delivered, and all the pains and throes he underwent were in order to it and hastened it on. [2.] Christ does and will see the blessed fruit of the travail of his soul in the founding and building up of his church and the eternal salvation of all that were given him. He will not come short of his end in any part of his work, but will himself see that he has not laboured in vain. [3.] The salvation of souls is a great satisfaction to the Lord Jesus. He will reckon all his pains well bestowed, and himself abundantly recompensed, if the many sons be by him brought through grace to glory. Let him have this, and he has enough. God will be glorified, penitent believers will be justified, and then Christ will be satisfied. Thus, in conformity to Christ, it should be a satisfaction to us if we can do any thing to serve the interests of God's kingdom in the world. Let it always be our meat and drink, as it was Christ's, to do God's will. 2. He shall have the glory of bringing in an everlasting righteousness; for so it was foretold concerning him, Dan_9:24. And here, to the same purport, By his knowledge (the knowledge of him, and faith in him) shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear the sins of many, and so lay a foundation for our justification from sin. Note, (1.) The great privilege that

flows to us from the death of Christ is justification from sin, our being acquitted from that guilt which alone can ruin us, and accepted into God's favour, which alone can make us happy. (2.) Christ, who purchased our justification for us, applies it to us, by his intercession made for us, his gospel preached to us, and his Spirit witnessing in us. The Son of man had power even on earth to forgive sin. (3.) There are many whom Christ justifies, not all (multitudes perish in their sins), yet many, even as many as he gave his life a ransom for, as many as the Lord our God shall call. He shall justify not here and there one that is eminent and remarkable, but those of the many, the despised multitude. (4.) It is by faith that we are justified, by our consent to Christ and the covenant of grace; in this way we are saved, because thus God is most glorified, free grace most advanced, self most abased, and our happiness most effectually secured. (5.) Faith is the knowledge of Christ, and without knowledge there can be no true faith. Christ's way of gaining the will and affections is by enlightening the understanding and bringing that unfeignedly to assent to divine truths. (6.) That knowledge of Christ, and that faith in him, by which we are justified, have reference to him both as a servant to God and as a surety for us. [1.] As one that is employed for God to pursue his designs and secure and advance the interests of his glory. “He is my righteous servant, and as such justifies men.” God has authorized and appointed him to do it; it is according to God's will and for his honour that he does it. He is himself righteous, and of his righteousness have all we received. He that is himself righteous (for he could not have made atonement for our sin if he had had any sin of his own to answer for) is made of God to us righteousness, the Lord our righteousness. [2.] As one that has undertaken for us. We must know him, and believe in him, as one that bore our iniquities - saved us from sinking under the load by taking it upon himself. 3. He shall have the glory of obtaining an incontestable victory and universal dominion, Isa_53:12. Because he has done all these good services, therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and, according to the will of the Father, he shall divide the spoil with the strong, as a great general, when he has driven the enemy out of the field, takes the plunder of it for himself and his army, which is both an unquestionable evidence of the victory and a recompense for all the toils and perils of the battle. Note, (1.) God the Father has engaged to reward the services and sufferings of Christ with great glory: “I will set him among the great, highly exalt him, and give him a name above every name.” Great riches are also assigned to him: He shall divide the spoil, shall have abundance of graces and comforts to bestow upon all his faithful soldiers. (2.) Christ comes at his glory by conquest. He has set upon the strong man armed, dispossessed him, and divided the spoil. He has vanquished principalities and powers, sin and Satan, death and hell, the world and the flesh; these are the strong that he has disarmed and taken the spoil of. (3.) Much of the glory with which Christ is recompensed, and the spoil which he has divided, consists in the vast multitudes of willing, faithful, loyal subjects, that shall be brought in to him; for so some read it: I will give many to him, and he shall obtain many for a spoil. God will give him the heathen for his inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, Psa_2:8. His dominion shall be from sea to sea. Many shall be wrought upon by the grace of God to give up themselves to him to be ruled, and taught, and saved by him, and hereby he shall reckon himself honoured, and enriched, and abundantly recompensed for all he did and all he suffered. (4.) What God designed for the Redeemer he shall certainly gain the possession of: “I will divide it to him,” and immediately it follows, He shall divide it, notwithstanding the opposition that is given to him; for, as Christ finished the work that was given him to do, so God completed the recompence that was promised him for it; for he is both able and faithful. (5.) The spoil which God divided to Christ he divides (it is the same word), he distributes, among his followers; for, when he led captivity captive, he received gifts for men, that he might give gifts to men; for as he has told us (Act_20:35) he did himself reckon it more blessed and honourable to give than to receive. Christ conquered for us, and through him we are more than conquerors. He has divided the spoils, the fruits of his conquest, to all that are his: let us therefore cast in our lot among them.

5. JAMISON. “divide — as a conqueror dividing the spoil after a victory (Psa_2:8; Luk_11:22). him — for Him. with ... great — Hengstenberg translates, “I will give Him the mighty for a portion”; so the Septuagint. But the parallel clause, “with the strong,” favors English Version. His triumphs shall be not merely among the few and weak, but among the many and mighty. spoil ... strong — (Col_2:15; compare Pro_16:19). “With the great; with the mighty,” may mean, as a great and mighty hero. poured out ... soul — that is, His life, which was considered as residing in the blood (Lev_17:11; Rom_3:25). numbered with, etc. — not that He was a transgressor, but He was treated as such, when crucified with thieves (Mar_15:28; Luk_22:37). made intercession, etc. — This office He began on the cross (Luk_23:34), and now continues in heaven (Isa_59:16; Heb_9:24; 1Jo_2:1). Understand because before “He was numbered ... He bare ... made intercession.” His meritorious death and intercession are the cause of His ultimate triumph. Maurer, for the parallelism, translates, “He was put on the same footing with the transgressors.” But English Version agrees better with the Hebrew, and with the sense and fact as to Christ. Maurer’s translation would make a tautology after “He was numbered with the transgressors”; parallelism does not need so servile a repetition. “He made intercession for,” etc., answers to the parallel, “He was numbered with,” etc., as effect answers to cause, His intercession for sinners being the effect flowing from His having been numbered with them.

6. K&D, “The last reward of His thus working after this life for the salvation of sinners, and also of His work in this life upon which the former is founded, is victorious dominion. “Therefore I give Him a portion among the great, and with strong ones will He divide spoil; because He has poured out His soul into death: and He let Himself be reckoned among transgressors; whilst He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” The promise takes its stand between humiliation and exaltation, and rests partly upon the working of the exalted One, and partly upon the doing and suffering of One who was so ready to sacrifice Himself. Luther follows the lxx and Vulgate, and adopts the rendering, “Therefore will I give Him a great multitude for booty;” and Hävernick, Stier, and others adopt essentially the same rendering, “Therefore will I apportion to Him the many.” But, as Job_39:17 clearly shows, this clause can only mean, “Therefore will I give Him a portion in the many.” If, however, chilleq b' means to have a portion in anything, and not to give the thing itself as a portion, it is evident that harabbı̄m here are not the many, but the great; and this is favoured by the parallel clause. The ideas of greatness and force, both in multitude and might, are bound up together in rabh and ‛atsum (see Isa_8:7), and the context only can decide which rendering is to be adopted when these ideas are separated from one another. What is meant by “giving a portion barabbı̄m,” is clearly seen from such passages as Isa_52:15; Isa_49:7, according to which the great ones of the earth will be brought to do homage to Him, or at all events to submit to Him. The second clause

is rendered by Luther, “and He shall have the strong for a prey.” This is at any rate better than the rendering of the lxx and Vulgate, “et fortium dividet spolia.” But Pro_16:19 shows that ‫ ֶאת‬is a preposition. Strong ones surround Him, and fight along with Him. The reference here is to the people of which it is said in Psa_110:3, “They people are thorough devotion in the day of Thy power;” and this people, which goes with Him to battle, and joins with Him in the conquest of the hostile powers of the world (Rev_19:14), also participates in the enjoyment of the spoils of His victory. With this victorious sway is He rewarded, because He has poured out His soul unto death, having not only exposed His life to death, but “poured out” (he‛e}rah, to strip or empty, or pour clean out, even to the very last remnant) His life-blood into death (lammaveth like the Lamed in Psa_22:16), and also because He has suffered Himself to be reckoned with transgressors, i.e., numbered among them (niph. tolerativum), namely, in the judgment of His countrymen, and in the unjust judgment (mishpat) by which He was delivered up to death as a wicked apostate and transgressor of the law. With ‫ וְ הוּא‬there is attached to ‫( וְ ֶאת־š ְּשׁעיִ ם נִ ְמנָ ה‬He was numbered with the transgressors), if not in a subordinate connection (like ‫ )והוא‬in Isa_53:5; (compare Isa_10:7), the following antithesis: He submitted cheerfully to the death of a sinner, and yet He was no sinner, but “bare the sin of many (cf., Heb_9:28), and made intercession for the transgressors.” Many adopt the rendering, “and He takes away the sin of many, and intervenes on behalf of the transgressors.” But in this connection the preterite ‫ )נָ ָשׂא‬can only relate to something antecedent to the foregoing future, so that ‫ יַ ְפִ יַ ע‬denotes a connected past; and thus have the lxx and Vulg. correctly rendered it. Just as +ְd ‫ ִה ְפִ יַ ע‬in Isa_53:6 signifies to cause to fall upon a person, so in Jer_15:11 it signifies to make one approach another (in supplication). Here, however, as in Isa_59:16, the hiphil is not a causative, but has the intensive force of the kal, viz., to press forward with entreaty, hence to intercede (with a Lamed of the person on whose behalf it occurs). According to the cons. temporum, the reference is not to the intercession (…ντευξις) of the glorified One, but to that of the suffering One, on behalf of His foes. Every word stands here as if written beneath the cross on Golgotha. And this is the case with the clause before us, which was fulfilled (though not exclusively) in the prayer of the crucified Saviour: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luk_23:34). “The prophetic view,” says Oehler, who agrees with us in the general opinion that the idea of the Servant of Jehovah has three distinct stages, “ascends in these discourses step by step, as it were, from the one broad space covered by the foundation-walls of a cathedral up to the very summit with its giddy height, on which the cross is planted; and the nearer it reaches the summit, the more conspicuous do the outlines of the cross itself become, until at last, when the summit is reached, it rests in peace, having attained what it desired when it set its foot upon the first steps of the temple tower.” There is something very striking in this figure. Here, in the very centre of this book of consolation, we find the idea of the Servant of Jehovah at the very summit of its ascent. It has reached the goal. The Messianic idea, which was hidden in the general idea of the nation regarded as “the servant of Jehovah,” has gradually risen up in the most magnificent metamorphosis from the depths in which it was thus concealed. And this fusion has generated what was hitherto altogether strange to the figure of the Messiah, viz., the unio mystica capitis et corporis. Hitherto Israel has appeared simply as the nation governed by the Messiah, the army which He conducted into battle, the commonwealth ordered by Him. But now, in the person of the Servant of Jehovah, we see Israel itself in personal self-manifestation: the idea of Israel is fully realized, and the true nature of Israel shines forth in all its brilliancy. Israel is the body, and He the head, towering above it. Another element, with which we found the Messianic idea enriched even before Isa_53:1-12, was the munus triplex. As early as chapters 7-12 the

figure of the Messiah stood forth as the figure of a King; but the Prophet like unto Moses, promised in Deu_18:15, was still wanting. But, according to chapters 42, 49, Isa_50:1-11, the servant of Jehovah is first a prophet, and as the proclaimer of a new law, and the mediator of a new covenant, really a second Moses; at the close of the work appointed Him, however, He receives the homage of kings, whilst, as Isa_53:1-12 clearly shows, that self-sacrifice lies between, on the ground of which He rules above as Priest after the order of Melchizedek - in other words, a Priest and also a King. From this point onward there are added to the Messianic idea the further elements of the status duplex and the satisfactio vicaria. David was indeed the type of the twofold state of his antitype, inasmuch as it was through suffering that he reached the throne; but where have we found, in all the direct Messianic prophecies anterior to this, the suffering path of the Ecce Homo even to the grave? But the Servant of Jehovah goes through shame to glory, and through death to life. He conquers when He falls; He rules after being enslaved; He lives after He has died; He completes His work after He Himself has been apparently cut off. His glory streams upon the dark ground of the deepest humiliation, to set forth which the dark colours were supplied by the pictures of suffering contained in the Psalms and in the book of Job. And these sufferings of His are not merely the sufferings of a confessor or a martyr, like those of the ecclesia pressa, but a vicarious atoning suffering, a sacrifice for sin. To this the chapter before us returns again and again, being never tired of repeating it. “Spiritus Sanctus,” says Brentius, “non delectatur inani battologi'a, et tamen quum in hoc cap. videatur βαττολόγος+καw+ταυτολόγος esse, dubium non est, quin tractet rem cognitu maxime necessariam.” The banner of the cross is here set up. The curtain of the most holy is lifted higher and higher. The blood of the typical sacrifice, which has been hitherto dumb, begins to speak. Faith, which penetrates to the true meaning of the prophecy, hopes on not only for the Lion of the tribe of Judah, but also for the Lamb of God, which beareth the sin of the world. And in prophecy itself we see the after-effect of this gigantic advance. Zechariah no longer prophesies of the Messiah merely as a king (Isa_5:13); He not only rules upon His throne, but is also a priest upon His throne: sovereignty and priesthood go hand in hand, being peacefully united in Him. And in Zec_12:13 the same prophet predicts in Him the good Divine Shepherd, whom His people pierce, though not without thereby fulfilling the counsel of God, and whom they afterwards long for with bitter lamentation and weeping. The penitential and believing confession which would then be made by Israel is prophetically depicted by Isaiah's pen “mourning in bitter sorrow the lateness of its love.”

7. CALVIN, “12.Therefore will I divide to him a portion. Isaiah again declares what will be the result of the death of Christ. It was necessary that he should add this doctrine as to the victory which Christ obtained by his death; for what was formerly stated, that by his death we are reconciled to the Father, would not have sufficiently confirmed our hearts. Here he borrows a comparison from the ordinary form of a triumphal procession held by those who, after having obtained a signal victory, are commonly received and adorned with great pomp and splendor. Thus also Christ, as a valiant and illustrious general, triumphed over the enemies whom he had vanquished. And he shall divide the spoil with the strong. This statement is the same as the preceding, and it is a customary repetition among Hebrew writers. Those whom he formerly called “” he now calls mighty or “” Those who translate ‫( רבים‬rabbim) by the word “” (58) torture, in my opinion, the Prophet’ meaning. In these two clauses there is only this difference, that in the former God testifies what he gave to Christ, and in the latter he adds that Christ enjoys that benefit, he enjoys it not on his own account, but on ours; (59) for the fruit of this victory comes to us. For us Christ subdued death, the world, and the devil. In

a word, the Prophet here applauds the victory which followed the death of Christ; for “ he was crucified through the weakness of the flesh, yet by the power of the Spirit” he rose from the dead, and triumphed over his enemies. (2Co_13:4) Such is the import of the metaphor of “” which the Prophet used; for “ ascended on high, that he might lead captivity captive and give gifts to men.” (Psa_68:18; Eph_4:8) For he poured out his soul to death. He now adds that Christ’ humiliation was the beginning of this supreme dominion; as Paul also declares that Christ, “ having blotted out the handwriting which was opposed to us, triumphed on the cross.” (Col_2:14) So far, then, is the shame of the death which Christ died from making any diminution of his glory, that it is the reason why God the Father exalted him to the highest honor. And was ranked with transgressors. He describes also the kind of death; as Paul, when he magnifies “ obedience” of Christ, and says that “ abased himself even to death,” likewise adds, that it was no ordinary death, but the death “ the cross,” that is, accursed and shameful. (Phi_2:8) So in this passage Isaiah, in order to express deeper shame, says that he was ranked among malefactors. But the deeper the shame before men, the greater was the glory of his resurrection by which it was followed. Mark quotes this passage, when he relates that Christ was crucified between two robbers; for at that time the prediction was most fully accomplished. (Mar_15:28) But the Prophet spoke in general terms, in order to show that Christ did not die an ordinary death. For the purpose of disgracing him the more, those two robbers were added; that Christ, as the most wicked of all, might be placed in the midst of them. This passage is, therefore, most appropriately quoted by Mark as relating to that circumstance. He bore the sin of many. This is added by way of correction, that, when we hear of the shame of Christ’ death, we may not think that it was a blot on the character of Christ, and that our minds may not, by being prejudiced in that manner, be prevented from receiving the victory which he obtained for us, that is, the fruit of his death. He shows, therefore, that this was done in order that he might take our sins upon him; and his object is, that, whenever the death of Christ shall be mentioned, we may at the same time remember the atonement made for us. And this fruit swallows up all the shame of the death of Christ, that his majesty and glory may be more clearly seen than if we only beheld him sitting in heaven; for we have in him a striking and memorable proof of the love of God, when he is so insulted, degraded, and loaded with the utmost disgrace, in order that we, on whom had been pronounced a sentence of everlasting destruction, may enjoy along with him immortal glory. I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that “ bore the sin of many,” though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word ‫( רבים‬rabbim,) to denote “ and Noble.” And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while “ was ranked among transgressors,” became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, (60) that “” sometimes denotes “” And prayed for the transgressors. Because the ratification of the atonement, with which Christ has washed us by his death, implies that he pleaded with the Father on our behalf, it was proper that this should be added. For, as in the ancient Law the priest, who “ entered without blood,” at the same time interceded for the people; so what was there shadowed out is fulfilled in Christ. (Exo_30:10; Heb_9:7) First, he offered the sacrifice of his body, and shed his blood, that he might endure the punishment which was due to us; and secondly, in order that the atonement might take effect, he performed the office of an

advocate, and interceded for all who embraced this sacrifice by faith; as is evident from that prayer which he left to us, written by the hand of John, “ pray not for these only, but for all who shall believe on me through their word.” (Joh_17:20) If we then belong to their number, let us be fully persuaded that Christ hath suffered for us, that we may now enjoy the benefit of his death. He expressly mentions “” that we may know that we ought to betake ourselves with assured confidence to the cross of Christ, when we are horror by the dread of sin. Yea, for this reason he is held out as our intercessor and advocate; for without his intercession our sins would deter us from approaching to God. (58) “Ceux qui traduisent, Je luy distribueray portion avec plusieurs.” “ who translate, I will divide to him a portion with many.” (59) “Non point pour soy, mais pour nous.” “ for himself, but for us.” (60) Rom_5:12. fj.

8. EBC Isaiah 52:13-53:12 THE SUFFERING SERVANT WE are now arrived at the last of the passages on the Servant of the Lord. It is known to Christendom as the Fifty-third of Isaiah, but its verses have, unfortunately, been divided between two chapters, Isa_52:13-15; Isa_53:1-12. Before we attempt the interpretation of this high and solemn passage of Revelation, let us look at its position in our prophecy, and examine its structure. The peculiarities of the style and of the vocabulary of Isa_52:13-15; Isa_53:1-12, along with the fact that, if it be omitted, the prophecies on either side readily flow together, have led some critics to suppose it to be an insertion, borrowed from an earlier writer. The style-broken, sobbing, and recurrent-is certainly a change from the forward, flowing sentences, on which we have been carried up till now, and there are a number of words that we find quite new to us. Yet surely both style and words are fully accounted for by the novel and tragic nature of the subject to which the prophet has brought us: regret and remorse though they speak through the same lips as hope and the assurance of salvation, must necessarily do so with a very different accent and set of terms. Criticism surely overreaches itself, when it suggests that a writer, so versatile and dramatic as our prophet, could not have written Isa_52:13-15 through Isa_53:1-12 along with, say, chapter 50 or Isa_52:1-12 or chapter 54. We might as well be asked to assign to different authors Hamlet’s soliloquy, and the King’s conversation, in the same play, with the ambassadors from Norway. To aver that if Isa_52:13-15 through Isa_53:1-12 were left out, no one who had not seen it would miss it, so closely does chapter 54. follow on to Isa_52:12, is to aver what means nothing. In any dramatic work you may leave out the finest passage, -from a Greek tragedy its grandest chorus, or from a play of Shakespeare’s the hero’s soliloquy, -without seeming, to eyes that have not seen what you have done, to have disturbed the connection of the whole. Observe the juncture in our prophecy at which this last passage on the Servant appears. It is one exactly the same as that at which another great passage on the Servant was inserted, (Isa_49:1-9) viz., just after a call to the people to seize the redemption achieved for them and to come forth from Babylon. It is the kind of climax or pause in their tale, which dramatic writers of all kinds employ for the solemn utterance of principles lying at the back, or transcending the scope, of the events of which they treat. To say the least, it is surely more probable that our prophet himself employed so natural an opportunity to give expression to his highest truths

about the Servant, than that some one else took his work, broke up another already extant work on the Servant and thrust the pieces of the latter into the former. Moreover, we shall find many of the ideas, as well as of the phrases, of Isa_52:13-15 through Isa_53:1-12 to be essentially the same as some we have already encountered in our prophecy. There is then no evidence that this singular prophecy ever stood apart from its present context, or that it was written by another writer than the prophet, by whom we have hitherto found ourselves conducted. On the contrary, while it has links with what goes before it, we see good reasons why the prophet should choose just this moment for uttering its unique and transcendent contents, as well as why he should employ in it a style and a vocabulary so different from his usual. Turning now to the structure of Isa_52:13-15 through Isa_53:1-12, we observe that, as arranged in the Canon, there are fifteen verses in the prophecy. These fifteen verses fall into five strophes of three verses each, as printed by the Revised English Version. When set in their own original lines, however, the strophes appear, not of equal, but of increasing length. As will be seen from the version given below, the first (Isa_52:13-15) has nine lines, the second (Isa_53:1-3) has ten lines, the third (Isa_53:4-6) has eleven lines, the fourth (Isa_53:7-9) thirteen lines, the fifth (Isa_53:10-12) fourteen lines. This increase would be absolutely regular, if, in the fourth strophe, we made either the first two lines one, or the last two one, and if in the fifth again we ran the first two lines together, -changes which the metre allows and some translators have adopted. But, in either case, we perceive a regular increase from strophe to strophe, that is not only one of the many marks with which this most artistic of poems has been elaborated, but gives the reader the very solemn impression of a truth that is ever gathering more of human life into itself, and sweeping forward with fuller and more resistless volume. Each strophe, it is well to notice, begins with one word or two words which summarise the meaning of the whole strophe and form a title for it. Thus, after the opening exclamation "Behold," the words "My Servant shall prosper" form, as we shall see, not only a summary of the first strophe, in which his ultimate exaltation is described, but the theme of the whole prophecy. Strophe 2 begins "Who hath believed," and accordingly in this strophe the unbelief and thoughtlessness of them who saw the Servant without feeling the meaning of his suffering is confessed. "Surely our sicknesses" fitly entitles strophe 3, in which the people describe how the Servant in his suffering was their substitute. "Oppressed yet he humbled himself" is the headline of strophe 4, and that strophe deals with the humility and innocence of the Servant in contrast to the injustice accorded him; while the headline of strophe 5, "But Jehovah had purposed," brings us back to the main theme of the poem, that behind men’s treatment of the Servant is God’s holy will; which theme is elaborated and brought to its conclusion in strophe 5. These opening and entitling words of each strophe are printed, in the following translation, in larger type than the rest. As in the rest of Hebrew poetry, so here, the measure is neither regular nor smooth, and does not depend on rhyme. Yet there is an amount of assonance which at times approaches to rhyme. Much of the meaning of the poem depends on the use of the personal pronouns-we and he stand contrasted to each other-and it is these coming in a lengthened form at the end of many of the lines that suggest to the ear something like rhyme. For instance, in Isa_53:5-6, the second and third verses of the third strophe, two of the lines run out on the bi-syllable enu, two on inu, and two on the word lanu, while the third has enu, not at the end, but in the middle; in each case, the pronominal suffix of the first person plural. We transcribe these lines to show the effect of this. Wehu’ meholal mippesha ‘enu Medhukka’ me’ awonothenu Musar shelomenu ‘alaw

Ubhahabhuratho nirpa’-lanu Kullanu kass-ss’on ta’inu ‘ish ledharko paninu Wa Jahweh hiphgi ‘a bo eth’awon kullanu. This is the strophe in which the assonance comes oftenest to rhyme; but in strophe 1 ehu ends two lines, and in strophe 2 it ends three. These and other assonants occur also at the beginning and in the middle of lines. We must remember that in all the cases quoted it is the personal pronouns, which give the assonance, -the personal pronouns on which so much of the meaning of the poem turns; and that, therefore, the parallelism primarily intended by the writer is one rather of meaning than of sound. The pair of lines, parallel in meaning, though not in sound, which forms so large a part of Hebrew poetry, is used throughout this poem; but the use of it is varied and elaborated to a unique degree. The very same words and phrases are repeated, and placed on points, from which they seem to call to each other; as, for instance, the double "many" in strophe 1, the "of us all "in strophe 3, and "nor opened he his mouth" in strophe 4. The ideas are very few and very simple: the words "he, we, his, ours, see, hear, know, bear, sickness, strike, stroke," and "many" form, with prepositions and participles, the bulk of the prophecy. It will be evident how singularly suitable this recurrence is for the expression of reproach, and of sorrowful recollection. It is the nature of grief and remorse to harp upon the one dear form, the one most vivid pain. The finest instance of this repetition is verse 6, with its opening keynote "kullanu" "of us all like sheep went astray," with its close on that keynote "guilt of us all," "kullanu." But throughout notes are repeated, and bars recur, expressive of what was done to the Servant, or what the Servant did for man, which seem in their recurrence to say, You cannot hear too much of me: I am the very Gospel. A peculiar sadness is lent to the music by the letters h and i in "holie" and "hehelie," the word for sickness or ailing (ailing is the English equivalent in sense and sound), which happens so often in the poem. The new words, which have been brought to vary this recurrence of a few simple features, are mostly of a sombre type. The heavier letters throng the lines: grievous bs and ms are multiplied, and syllables with long vowels before m and w. But the words sob as well as tramp; and here and there one has a wrench and one a cry in it. Most wonderful and mysterious of all is the spectral fashion in which the prophecy presents its Hero. He is named only in the first line and once again: elsewhere He is spoken of as He. We never hear or see Himself. But all the more solemnly is He there: a shadow upon countless faces, a grievous memory on the hearts of the speakers. He so haunts all we see and all we hear, that we feel it is not Art, but Conscience, that speaks of Him. Here is now the prophecy itself, rendered into English quite literally, except for a conjunction here and there, and, as far as possible, in the rhythm of the original. A few necessary notes on difficult words and phrases are given. I. Isa_52:13 : Behold, my Servant shall prosper, Shall rise, be lift up, be exceedingly high Like as they that were astonied before thee were many, -So marred from a man’s was his visage, And his form from the children of men! -So shall the nations he startles be many, Before him shall kings shut their mouths.

For that which had never been told them they see, And what they had heard not, they have to consider. II. Who gave believing to that which we heard, And the arm of Jehovah to whom was it bared? For he sprang like a sapling before Him, As a root from the ground that is parched; He had no form nor beauty that we should regard him, Nor aspect that we should desire him. Despised and rejected of men Man of pains and familiar with ailing, And as one we do cover the face from, Despised, and we did not esteem him. III. Surely our ailments he bore, And our pains he did take for his burden. But we-we accounted him stricken, Smitten of God and degraded. Yet he-he was pierced for crimes that were ours, He was crushed for guilt that was ours, The chastisement of our peace was upon him, By his stripes healing is ours. Of us all like to sheep went astray, Every man to his way we did turn, And Jehovah made light upon him The guilt of us all. IV. Oppressed, he did humble himself, Nor opened his mouthAs a lamb to the slaughter is led. As a sheep ’fore her shearers is dumbNor opened his mouth. By tyranny and law was he taken; And of his age who reflected, That he was wrenched from the land of the living,

For My people’s transgressions the stroke was on him? So they made with the wicked his grave, Yea, with the felon his tomb. Though never harm had he done, Neither was guile in his mouth. V. But Jehovah had purposed to bruise him, Had laid on him sickness; if his life should offer guilt offering, A seed he should see, he should lengthen his days. And the purpose of Jehovah by his hand should prosper, From the travail of his soul shall he see, By his knowledge be satisfied. My Servant, the Righteous, righteousness wins he for many, And their guilt he takes for his load. Therefore I set him a share with the great, Yea, with the strong shall he share the spoil: Because that he poured out his life unto death, Let himself with transgressors be reckoned; Yea, he the sin of the many hath borne, And for the transgressors he interposes. Let us now take the interpretation strophe by strophe. 1. Isa_52:13-15. When last our eyes were directed to the Servant, he was suffering unexplained and unvindicated. (Isa_50:4-6) His sufferings seemed to have fallen upon him as the consequence of his fidelity to the Word committed to him; the Prophet had inevitably become the Martyr. Further than this his sufferings were not explained, and the Servant was left in them, calling upon God indeed, and sure that God would hear and vindicate him, but as yet unanswered by word of God or word of man. It is these words, words both of God and of man, which are given in Isa_52:13-15 through Isa_53:1-12. The Sufferer is explained and vindicated, first by God in the first strophe, Isa_52:13-15, and then by the Conscience of Men, His own people, in the second and third; (Isa_53:1-6) and then, as it appears, the Divine Voice, or the Prophet speaking for it, resumes in strophes 4 and 5, and concludes in a strain similar to strophe 1. God’s explanation and vindication of the Sufferer is, then, given in the first strophe. It is summed up in the first line, and in one very pregnant word. Jeremiah had said of the Messiah, "He shall reign as a King and deal wisely" or "prosper"; (Jer_23:5) and so God says here of the Servant, "Behold he shall deal wisely" or "prosper." The Hebrew verb does not get full expression in any English one. In rendering it "shall deal wisely" or "prudently" our translators undoubtedly touch the quick of it. For it is originally a mental process or quality: "has insight, understands, is farseeing." But then it also includes the effect of this-"understands so as to get on, deals wisely so as to succeed, is practical" both in his way of working and in being sure of his end. Ewald has found an almost exact equivalent in German, "hat Geschick"; for Geschick

means both "skill" or "address" and "fate" or "destiny." The Hebrew verb is the most practical in the whole language, for this is precisely the point which the prophecy seeks to bring out about the Servant’s sufferings. They are practical. He is practical in them. He endures them, not for their own sake, but for some practical end of which he is aware and to which they must assuredly bring him. His failure to convince men by his word, the pain and spite which seem to be his only wage, are not the last of him, but the beginning and the way to what is higher. So "shall he rise and be lift up and be very high." The suffering, which in chapter 1 seemed to be the Servant’s misfortune, is here seen as his wisdom which shall issue in his glory. But of themselves men do not see this, and they need to be convinced. Pain, the blessed means of God, is man’s abhorrence and perplexity. All along the history of the world the Sufferer has been the astonishment and stumbling-block of humanity. The barbarian gets rid of him; he is the first difficulty with which every young literature wrestles; to the end he remains the problem of philosophy and the sore test of faith. It is not native to men to see meaning or profit in the Sufferer; they are staggered by him, they see no reason or promise in him. So did men receive this unique Sufferer, this Servant of Jehovah. The many were astonied at him; his visage was so marred more than men, and his form than the children of men. But his life is to teach them the opposite of their impressions, and to bring them out of their perplexity into reverence before the revealed purpose of God in the Sufferer. "As they that were astonied at thee were many, so shall the nations he startles be many; kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which was not told them they see, and that which they have heard not they have to consider,"-viz., the triumph and influence to which the Servant was consciously led through suffering. There may be some reflection here of the way in which the Gentiles regarded the Suffering Israel, but the reference is vague, and perhaps purposely so. The first strophe, then, gives us just the general theme. In contrast to human experience God reveals in His servant that suffering is fruitful, that sacrifice is practical. Pain, in God’s service, shall lead to glory. II. Isa_53:1-3. God never speaks but in man He wakens conscience, and the second strophe of the prophecy (along with the third) is the answer of conscience to God. Penitent men, looking back from the light of the Servant’s exaltation to the time when his humiliation was before their eyes, say, "Yes; what God has said is true of us. We were the deaf and the indifferent. We heard, but ‘who of us believed what we heard, and to whom was the arm of the Lord’-His purpose, the hand He had in the Servant’s sufferings-‘revealed?"’ Who are these penitent speakers? Some critics have held them to be the heathen, more have said that they are Israel. But none have pointed out that the writer gives himself no trouble to define them, but seems more anxious to impress us with their consciousness of their moral relation to the Servant. On the whole, it would appear that it is Israel, whom the prophet has in mind as the speakers of Isa_53:1-6. For, besides the fact that the Old Testament knows nothing of a bearing by Israel of the sins of the Gentiles, it is expressly said in Isa_53:8, that the sins for which the Servant was stricken were the sins of "my people"; which people must be the same as the speakers, for they own in Isa_53:4-6 that the Servant bore their sins. For these and other reasons the mass of Christian critics at the present day are probably right when they assume that Israel are the speakers in Isa_53:1-6; but the reader must beware of allowing his attention to be lost in questions of that kind. The art of the poem seems intentionally to leave vague the national relation of the speakers to the Servant, in order the more impressively to bring out their moral attitude towards him. There is an utter disappearance of all lines of separation between Jew and Gentile, -both in the first strophe, where, although Gentile names are used, Jews may yet be meant to be included, and in the rest of the poem, -as if the writer wished us to feel that all men stood over against that solitary Servant in a common indifference to his suffering and a common conscience of the guilt he bears. In short, it is no historical situation, such as some critics seem anxious to fasten him down upon, that the prophet reflects; but a certain moral situation, ideal in so far as it was not

yet realised, -the state of the quickened human conscience over against a certain Human Suffering, in which, having noted it at the time, that conscience now realises that the purpose of God was at work. In Isa_53:2 and Isa_53:3 the penitent speakers give us the reasons of their disregard of the Servant in the days of his suffering. In these reasons there is nothing peculiar to Israel, and no special experience of Jewish history is reflected by the terms in which they are conveyed. They are the confession, in general language, of a universal human habit, -the habit of letting the eye cheat the heart and conscience, of allowing the aspect of suffering to blind us to its meaning; of forgetting in our sense of the ugliness and helplessness of pain, that it has a motive, a future, and a God. It took ages to wean mankind from those native feelings of aversion and resentment, which caused them at first to abandon or destroy their sick. And, even now, scorn for the weak and incredulity in the heroism or in the profitableness of suffering are strong in the best of us. We judge by looks; we are hurried by the physical impression which the sufferer makes on us, or by our pride that we are not as he is, into peremptory and harsh judgments upon him. Every day we allow the dulness of poverty, the ugliness of disease, the unprofitableness of misfortune, the ludicrousness of failure, to keep back conscience from discovering to us our share of responsibility for them, and to repel our hearts from that sympathy and patience with them, which along with conscience would assuredly discover to us their place in God’s Providence and their special significance for ourselves. It is this original sin of man, of which these penitent speakers own themselves guilty. But no one is ever permitted to rest with a physical or intellectual impression of suffering. The race, the individual, has always been forced by conscience to the task of finding a moral reason for pain and nothing so marks man’s progress as the successive solutions he has attempted to this problem. The speakers, therefore, proceed in the next part of their confession, strophe 3., to tell us what they first falsely accounted the moral reason of the Servant’s suffering and what they afterwards found to be the truth. III. Isa_53:4-6. The earliest and most common moral judgment which men pass upon pain is that which is implied in its name-that it is penal. A man suffers because God is angry with him and has stricken him. So Job’s friends judged him, and so these speakers tell us they had at first judged the Servant. "We had accounted him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted,"-"stricken," that is, with a plague of sickness, as Job was, for the simile of the sick man is still kept up; "smitten of God and degraded" or "humbled," for it seemed to them that God’s hand was in the Servant’s sickness, to punish and disgrace him for his own sins. But now they know they were wrong. The hand of God was indeed upon the Servant, and the reason was sin; yet the sin was not his, but theirs. "Surely our sicknesses he bore, and our pains he took as his burden. He was pierced for iniquities that were ours. He was crushed for crimes that were ours." Strictly interpreted, these verses mean no more than that the Servant was involved in the consequences of his people’s sins. The verbs "bore" and "made his burden" are indeed taken by some to mean, necessarily, removal or expiation; but in themselves, as is clear from their application to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the whole of the generation of Exile, they mean no more than implication in the reproach and the punishment of the people’s sins. Nevertheless, as we have explained in a note below, it is really impossible to separate the suffering of a Servant, who has been announced as practical and prosperous in his suffering, from the end for which it is endured. We cannot separate the Servant’s bearing of the people’s guilt from his removal of it. And, indeed, this practical end of his passion springs forth, past all doubt, from the rest of the strophe, which declares that the Servant’s sufferings are not only vicarious but redemptive; "The discipline of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Translators agree that "discipline of our peace" must mean discipline which procures our peace. The peace, the healing, is ours, in consequence of the chastisement and the scourging that was his. The next verse gives us the obverse and complement of the same thought. The pain was his in consequence of the sin that

was ours. "All we like sheep had gone astray, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all,"literally "iniquity," but inclusive of its guilt and consequences. Nothing could be plainer than these words. The speakers confess that they know that the Servant’s suffering was both vicarious and redemptive. But how did they get this knowledge? They do not describe any special means by which it came to them. They state this high and novel truth simply as the last step in a process of their consciousness. At first they were bewildered by the Servant’s suffering; then they thought it contemptible, thus "passing upon it an intellectual judgment"; then, forced to seek a moral reason for it, they accounted it as penal and due to the Servant for his own sins; then they recognised that. its penalty was vicarious, that the Servant was suffering for them; and finally, they knew that it was redemptive, the means of their own healing and peace. This is a natural climax, a logical and moral progress of thought. The last two steps are stated simply as facts of experience following on other facts. Now our prophet usually publishes the truths, with which he is charged, as the very words of God, introducing them with a solemn and authoritative "Thus saith Jehovah." But this novel and supreme truth of vicarious and redemptive suffering, this passion and virtue which crowns the Servant’s office, is introduced to us, not by the mouth of God, but by the lips of penitent men; not as all oracle, but as a confession; not as the commission of Divine authority laid beforehand upon the Servant like his other duties, but as the conviction of the human conscience after the Servant has been lifted up before it. In short, by this unusual turn of his art, the prophet seeks to teach us that vicarious suffering is not a dogmatic, but an experimental truth. The substitution of the Servant for the guilty people, and the redemptive force of that substitution, are no arbitrary doctrine, for which God requires from man a mere intellectual assent; they are no such formal institution of religion as mental indolence and superstition delight to have prepared for their mechanical adherence: but substitutive suffering is a great living fact of human experience, whose outward features are not more evident to men’s eyes than its inner meaning is appreciable by their conscience, and of irresistible effect upon their whole moral nature. Is this lesson of our prophet’s art not needed? Men have always been apt to think of vicarious suffering, and of its function in their salvation, as something above and apart from their moral nature, with a value known only to God and not calculable in the terms of conscience or of man’s moral experience; nay, rather as something that conflicts with man’s ideas of morality and justice; whereas both the fact and the virtue of vicarious suffering come upon us all, as these speakers describe the vicarious sufferings of the Servant to have come upon them, as a part of inevitable experience, If it be natural, as we saw, for men to be bewildered by the first sight of suffering, to scorn it as futile and to count it the fault of the sufferer himself, it is equally natural and inevitable that these first and hasty theories should be dispelled by the longer experience of life and the more thorough working of conscience. The stricken are not always bearing their own sin. "Suffering is the minister of justice. This is true in part, yet it also is inadequate to explain the facts. Of all the sorrow which befalls humanity, how small a part falls upon the specially guilty; how much seems rather to seek out the good! We might almost ask whether it is not weakness rather than wrong that is punished in this world." In every nation, in every family, the innocent suffer for the guilty. Vicarious suffering is not arbitrary or accidental; it comes with our growth; It is of the very nature of things. It is that part of the Service of Man, to which we are all born, and of the reality of which we daily grow more aware. But even more than its necessity life teaches us its virtue. Vicarious suffering is not a curse. It is Service-Service for God. It proves a power where every other moral force has failed. By it men are redeemed, on whom justice and their proper punishment have been able to effect nothing. Why this should be is very intelligible. We are not so capable of measuring the physical or moral results of our actions upon our own characters or in our own fortunes as we are upon the lives of others; nor do we so awaken to the guilt and heinousness of our sin as when it reaches and

implicates lives which were not partners with us in it. Moreover, while a man’s punishment is apt to give him an excuse for saying, I have expiated my sin myself, and so to leave him selfsatisfied and with nothing for which to be grateful or obliged to a higher will; or while it may make him reckless or plunge him into despair; so, on the contrary, when he recognises that others feel the pain of his sin and have come under its weight, then shame is quickly born within him, and pity and every ether passion that can melt a hard heart. If, moreover, the others who bear his sin do so voluntarily and for love’s sake, then how quickly on the back of shame and pity does gratitude rise, and the sense of debt and of constraint to their will! For all these very intelligible reasons, vicarious suffering has been a powerful redemptive force in the experience of the race. Both the fact of its beneficence and the moral reasons for this are clear enough to lift us above a question, which sometimes gives trouble regarding it, -the question of its justice. Such a question is futile about any service for man, which succeeds as this does where all others have failed, and which proves itself so much in harmony with man’s moral nature. But the last shred of objection to the justice of vicarious suffering is surely removed when the sufferer is voluntary as well as vicarious. And, in truth, human experience feels that it has found its highest and its holiest fact in the love that, being innocent itself, stoops to bear its fellows’ sins, -not only the anxiety and reproach of them, but even the cost and the curse of them. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"; and greater service can no man do to men than to serve them in this way. Now in this universal human experience of the inevitableness and the virtue of vicarious suffering, Israel had been deeply baptised. The nation had been "served" by suffering in all the ways we have just described. Beginning with the belief that all righteousness prospered, Israel had come to see the righteous afflicted in her midst; the best Israelites had set their minds to the problem, and learned to believe, at least, that such affliction was of God’s will, -part of His Providence, and not an interruption to it. Israel, too, knew the moral solidarity of a people: that citizens share each other’s sorrows, and that one generation rolls over its guilt upon the next. Frequently had the whole nation been spared for a pious remnant’s sake; and in the Exile, while all the people were formally afflicted by God, it was but a portion of them whose conscience was quick to the meaning of the chastisement, and of them alone, in their submissive and intelligent sufferance of the Lord’s wrath, could the opening gospel of the prophecy be spoken, that they "had accomplished their warfare, and had received of the Lord’s hands double for all their sins." But still more vivid than these collective substitutes for the people were the individuals, who, at different points in Israel’s history, had stood forth and taken up as their own the nation’s conscience and stooped to bear the nation’s curse. Far away back, a Moses had offered himself for destruction, if for his sake God would spare his sinful and thoughtless countrymen. In a psalm of the Exile it is remembered that, He said, that He would destroy them, Had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach, To turn away His wrath, lest He should destroy. And Jeremiah, not by a single heroic resolve, but by the slow agony and martyrdom of a long life, had taken Jerusalem’s sin upon his own heart, had felt himself forsaken of God, and had voluntarily shared his city’s doom, while his generation, unconscious of their guilt and blind to their fate, despised him and esteemed him not. And Ezekiel, who is Jeremiah’s far-off reflection, who could only do in symbol what Jeremiah did in reality, was commanded to lie on his side for days, and so "bear the guilt" of his people. But in Israel’s experience it was not only the human Servant who served the nation by suffering, for God Himself had come down to "carry" His distressed and accursed people, and "to load Himself with them." Our prophet uses the same two verbs of Jehovah as are used of the Servant.

(Isa_46:3-4) Like the Servant, too, God "was afflicted in all their affliction"; and His love towards them was expended in passion and agony for their sins. Vicarious suffering was not only human, it was Divine. Was it very wonderful that a people with such an experience, and with such examples, both human and Divine, should at last be led to the thought of One Sufferer, who would exhibit in Himself all the meaning, and procure for His people all the virtue, of that vicarious reproach and sorrow, which a long line of their martyrs had illustrated, and which God had revealed as the passion of His own love? If they had had every example that could fit them to understand the power of such a sufferer, they had also every reason to feel their need of Him. For the Exile had not healed the nation; it had been for the most of them an illustration of that evil effect of punishment to which we alluded above. Penal servitude in Babylon had but hardened Israel. "God poured on him the fury of anger, and the strength of battle: it set him on fire round about, yet he knew not, and it burned him, yet he laid it not to heart." (Isa_42:25) What the Exile, then, had failed to do, when it brought upon the people their own sins, the Servant, taking these sins upon himself, would surely effect. The people, whom the Exile had only hardened, his vicarious suffering should strike into penitence and lift to peace. IV. Isa_53:7-9. It is probable that with Isa_53:6 the penitent people have ceased speaking, and that the parable is now taken up by the prophet himself. The voice of God, which uttered the first strophe, does not seem to resume till Isa_53:11. If strophe 3 confessed that it was for the people’s sins the Servant suffered, strophe 4 declares that he himself was sinless, and yet silently submitted to all which injustice laid upon him. Now Silence under Suffering is a strange thing in the Old Testament-a thing absolutely new. No other Old Testament personage could stay dumb under pain, but immediately broke into one of two voices, -voice of guilt or voice of doubt. In the Old Testament the sufferer is always either confessing his guilt to God, or, when he feels no guilt, challenging God in argument. David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Job, and the nameless martyred and moribund of the Psalms, all strive and are loud under pain. Why was this Servant the unique and solitary instance of silence under suffering? Because he had a secret which they had not. It had been said of him: "My Servant shall deal wisely" or "intelligently," shall know what he is about. He had no guilt of his own, no doubts of his God. But he was conscious of the end God had in his pain, an end not to be served in any other way, and with all his heart he had given himself to it. It was not punishment he was enduring; it was not the throes of the birth into higher experience, which he was feeling: it was a Service he was performing, -a service laid on him by God, a service for man’s redemption, a service sure of results and of glory. Therefore "as a lamb to the slaughter is led, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, he opened not his mouth." The next two verses (Isa_53:8-9) describe how the Servant’s Passion was fulfilled. The figure of a sick man was changed in Isa_53:5 to that of a punished one, and the punishment we now see carried on to death. The two verses are difficult, the readings and renderings of most of the words being very various. But the sense is clear. The Servant’s death was accomplished, not on some far hill top by a stroke out of heaven, but in the forms of human law and by men’s hands. It was a judicial murder. "By tyranny and by judgment,"-that is, by a forced and tyrannous judgment, -"he was taken." To this abuse of law the next verse adds the indifference of public opinion: "and as for his contemporaries, who of them reflected that he was cut off from," or "cut down in, the land of the living,"-that in spite of the form of law that condemned him he was a murdered man, -that "for the transgression of my people the stroke was his?" So, having conceived him to have been lawfully put to death, they consistently gave him a convict’s grave: "they made his grave with the wicked, and he was with the felon in his death," though-and on this the strophe emphatically ends-he was an innocent man, "he had done no harm, neither was guile in his mouth."

Premature sickness and the miscarriage of justice, -these to Orientals are the two outstanding misfortunes of the individual’s life. Take the Psalter, set aside its complaints of the horrors of war and of invasion, and you will find almost: all the rest of its sighs rising either from sickness or from the sense of injustice. These were the classic forms of individual suffering in the age and civilisation to which our prophet belonged, and it was natural, therefore, that when he was describing an Ideal or Representative Sufferer, he should fill in his picture with both of them. If we remember this, we shall feel no incongruity in the sudden change of the here from a sick man to a convict, and back again in Isa_53:10 from a convict to a sick man. Nor, if we remember this, shall we feel disposed to listen to those interpreters who hold that the basis of this prophecy was the account of an actual historical martyrdom. Had such been the case the prophet would surely have held throughout to one or the other of the two forms of suffering. His sufferer would have been either a leper or a convict, hut hardly both. No doubt the details in Isa_53:8-9 are so realistic that they might well be the features of an actual miscarriage of justice; but the like happened too frequently in the Ancient East for such verses to be necessarily any one man’s portrait. Perverted justice was the curse of the individual’s life-perverted justice and that stolid, fatalistic apathy of Oriental public opinion, which would probably regard such a sufferer as suffering for his sins the just vengeance of heaven, though the minister of this vengeance was a tyrant and its means were perjury and murder. "Who of his generation reflected that for the transgression of my people the stroke was on him!" V. Isa_53:10-12. We have heard the awful tragedy. The innocent Servant was put to a violent and premature death. Public apathy closed over him and the unmarked earth of a felon’s grave. It is so utter a perversion of justice, so signal a triumph of wrong over right, so final a disappearance into oblivion of the fairest life that ever lived, that men might be tempted to say, God has forsaken His own. On the contrary-so strophe 5 begins-God’s own will and pleasure have been in this tragedy: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him." The line as it thus stands in our English version has a grim, repulsive sound. But the Hebrew word has no necessary meaning of pleasure or enjoyment." All it says is, God so willed it. His purpose was in this tragedy. Deus vult! It is the one message which can render any pain tolerable or light up with meaning a mystery so cruel as this: "The Lord" Himself" had purposed to bruise His Servant, "the Lord Himself had laid on him sickness" (the figure of disease is resumed). God’s purpose in putting the Servant to death is explained in the rest of the verse. It was in order that "through his soul making a guilt-offering, he might see a seed, prolong his days, and that the pleasure of the Lord might prosper by his hand." What is a guilt-offering? The term originally meant guilt, and is so used by a prophet contemporary to our own. (Jer_51:4) In the legislation, however, both in the Pentateuch and in Ezekiel, it is applied to legal and sacrificial forms of restitution or reparation for guilt. It is only named in Ezekiel along with other sacrifices. (Eze_40:39; Eze_42:13; Eze_44:29; Eze_46:20) Both Numbers and Leviticus define it, but define it differently. In Numbers (Num_5:7-8) it is the payment, which a transgressor has to make to the human person offended, of the amount to Which he has harmed that person’s property: it is what we call damages. But in Leviticus it is the ram, exacted over and above damages to the injured party, (Lev_5:14-16; Lev_6:1-7) or in cases where no damages were asked, (Lev_5:17-19) by the priest; the representative of God, for satisfaction to His law; and it was required even where the offender had been an unwitting one. By this guilt-offering "the priest made atonement" for the sinner and "he was forgiven." It was for this purpose of reparation to the Deity that the plagued Philistines sent a guilt-offering back with the ark of Jehovah, which they had stolen. (1Sa_6:13) But there is another historical passage, which though the term "guilt-offering" is not used in it, admirably illustrates the idea. A famine in David’s time was revealed to be due to the murder of certain Gibeonites by the house of Saul. David asked the Gibeonites what reparation he could make. They said it was not a matter of damages. But both parties felt that before the law of God could be satisfied and the

land relieved of its curse, some atonement, some guilt-offering, must be made to the Divine Law. It was a wild kind of satisfaction that was paid. Seven men of Saul’s house were hung up before the Lord in Gibeon. But the instinct, though satisfied in so murderous a fashion, was a true and a grand instinct, -the conscience of a law above all human laws and rights, to which homage must be paid before the sinner could come into true relations with God, or the Divine curse be lifted off. It is in this sense that the word is used of the Servant of Jehovah, the Ideal, Representative Sufferer. Innocent as he is, he gives his life as satisfaction to the Divine law for the guilt of his people. His death was no mere martyrdom or miscarriage of human justice: in God’s intent and purpose, but also by its own, voluntary offering, it was an expiatory sacrifice. By his death the Servant did homage to the law of God. By dying for it He made men feel that the supreme end of man was to own that law and be in a right relation to it, and that the supreme service was to help others to a right relation. As it is said a little farther down, "My Servant, righteous himself, wins righteousness for many, and makes their iniquities his load." It surely cannot be difficult for anyone, who knows what sin is, and what a part vicarious suffering plays both in the bearing of the sin and in the redemption of the sinner, to perceive that at this point the Servant’s service for God and man reaches its crown. Compare his death and its sad meaning, with the brilliant energies of his earlier career. It is a heavy and an honourable thing to come from God to men, laden with God’s truth for your charge and responsibility; but it is a far heavier to stoop and take upon your heart as your business and burden men’s suffering and sin. It is a needful and a lovely thing to assist the feeble aspirations of men, to put yourself on the side of whatever in them is upward and living, -to be the shelter, as the Servant was, of the bruised reed and the fading wick; but it is more indispensable, and it is infinitely heavier, to seek to lift the deadness of men, to take their guilt upon your heart, to attempt to rouse them to it, to attempt to deliver them from it. It is a useful and a glorious thing to establish order and justice among men, to create a social conscience, to inspire the exercise of love and the habits of service, and this the Servant did when "he set Law on the Earth, and the Isles waited for his teaching"; but after all man’s supreme and controlling relation is his relation to God, and to this their "righteousness" the Servant restored guilty men by his death. And so it was at this point, according to our prophecy, that the Servant, though brought so low, was nearest his exaltation: though in death, yet nearest life, nearest the highest kind of life, "the seeing of a seed," the finding of himself in others; though despised, rejected, and forgotten of men, most certain of finding a place among the great and notable forces of life, -"therefore do I divide him a share with the great, and the spoil he shall share with the strong." Not because as a prophet he was a sharp sword in the hand of the Lord, or a light flashing to the ends of the earth, but in that-as the prophecy concludes, and it is the prophet’s last and highest word concerning him-in that "he bare the sin of the many, and interposed for the transgressors." We have seen that the most striking thing about this prophecy is the spectral appearance of the Servant. He haunts, rather than is present in, the chapter. We hear of him, but he himself does not speak. We see faces that he startles, lips that the sight of him shuts, lips that the memory of him, after he has passed in silence, opens to bitter confession of neglect and misunderstanding; but himself we see not. His aspect and his bearing, his work for God and his influence on men, are shown to us, through the recollection and conscience of the speakers, with a vividness and a truth that draw the consciences of us who hear into the current of the confession, and take our hearts captive. But when we ask, Who was he then? What was his name among men? Where shall we find himself? Has he come, or do you still look for him?-neither the speakers, whose conscience he so smote, nor God, whose chief purpose he was, give us here any answer. In some verses he and his work seem already to have happened upon earth, but again we are made to feel that he is still future to the prophet, and that the voices, which the prophet quotes as speaking of

having seen him and found him to be the Saviour, are voices of a day not yet born while the prophet writes. But about five hundred and fifty years after this prophecy was written, a Man came forward among the sons of men.-among this very nation from whom the prophecy had arisen; and in every essential of consciousness and of experience He was the counterpart, embodiment, and fulfilment of this Suffering Servant and his Service. Jesus Christ answers the questions which the prophecy raises and leaves unanswered. In the prophecy we see one who is only a spectre, a dream, a conscience without a voice, without a name, without a place in history. But in Jesus Christ of Nazareth the dream becomes a reality: He, whom we have seen in this chapter only as the purpose of God, only through the eyes and consciences of a generation yet unborn, -He comes forward in flesh and blood; He speaks, He explains Himself, He accomplishes almost to the last detail the work, the patience, and the death that are here described as Ideal and Representative. The correspondence of details between Christ’s life and this prophecy, published five hundred and fifty years before He came, is striking; if we encountered it for the first time, it would be more than striking, it would be staggering. But do not let us do what so many have done-so fondly exaggerate it as to lose in the details of external resemblance the moral and spiritual identity. For the external correspondence between this prophecy and the life of Jesus Christ is by no means perfect. Every wound that is set down in the fifty-third of Isaiah was not reproduced or fulfilled in the sufferings of Jesus. For instance, Christ was not the sick, plague-stricken man whom the Servant is at first represented to be. The English translators have masked the leprous figure, that stands out so clearly in the original Hebrew.-for "acquainted with grief, bearing our griefs, put him to grief," we should in each case read "sickness." Now Christ was no Job. As Matthew points out, the only way He could be said "to bear our sicknesses and to carry our pains" was by healing them, not by sharing them. And again, exactly as the judicial murder of the Servant, and the entire absence from his contemporaries of any idea that he suffered a vicarious death, suit the case of Christ, the next stage in the Servant’s fate was not true of the Victim of Pilate and the Pharisees. Christ’s grave was not with the wicked. He suffered as a felon without the walls on the common place of execution, but friends received the body and gave it an honourable burial in a friend’s grave. Or take the clause, "with the rich in his death." It is doubtful whether the word is really "rich," and ought not to be a closer synonym of "wicked" in the previous clause; but if it be "rich," it is simply another name for "the wicked," who in the East, in cases of miscarried justice, are so often coupled with the evildoers. It cannot possibly denote such a man as Joseph of Arimathea; nor, is it to be observed, do the Evangelists in describing Christ’s burial in that rich and pious man’s tomb take any notice of this line about the Suffering Servant. But the absence of a complete incidental correspondence only renders more striking the moral and spiritual correspondence, the essential likeness between the Service set forth in chapter 53 and the work of our Lord. The speakers of chapter 53 set the Servant over against themselves, and in solitariness of character and office. They count him alone sinless where all they have sinned, and him alone the agent of salvation and healing where their whole duty is to look on and believe. But this is precisely the relation which Christ assumed between Himself and the nation. He was on one side, all they on the other. Against their strong effort to make Him the First among them, it was, as we have said before, the constant aim of our Lord to assert and to explain Himself as The Only.

And this Onlyness was to be realised in suffering. He said, "I must suffer"; or again, "It behoves the Christ to suffer." Suffering is the experience in which men feel their oneness with their kind. Christ, too, by suffering felt His oneness with men; but largely in order to assert a singularity beyond. Through suffering He became like unto men, but only that He might effect through suffering a lonely and a singular service for them. For though He suffered in all points as men did, yet He shared none of their universal feelings about suffering. Pain never drew from Him either of those two voices of guilt or of doubt. Pain never reminded Christ of His own past, nor made Him question God. Nor did He seek pain for any end in itself. There have been men who have done so; fanatics who have gloried in pain; superstitious minds that have fancied it to be meritorious; men whose wounds have been as mouths to feed their pride, or to publish their fidelity to their cause. But our Lord shrank from pain; if it had been possible He would have willed not to bear it: "Father, save Me from this hour; Father, if it be Thy will, let this cup pass from Me." And when He submitted and was under the agony, it was not in the feeling of it, nor in the impression it made on others, nor in the manner in which it drew men’s hearts to Him, nor in the seal it set on the truth, but in something beyond it, that He found His end and satisfaction. Jesus "looked out of the travail of His soul and was satisfied." For, firstly, He knew His pain to be God’s will for and outside Himself, -"I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished: Father, save Me from this hour, yet for this cause came I to this hour: Father, Thy will be done,"-and all opportunities to escape as temptations. And, secondly, like the Servant, Jesus "dealt prudently, had insight." The will of God in His suffering was no mystery to Him. He understood from the first why He was to suffer. The reasons He gave were the same two and in the same order as are given by our prophet for the sufferings of the Servant, -first, that fidelity to God’s truth could bring with it no other fate in Israel, then that His death was necessary for the sins of men, and as men’s ransom from sin. In giving the first of these reasons for His death, Christ likened Himself to the prophets who had gone before Him in Jerusalem; but in the second He matched Himself with no other, and no other has ever been known in this to match himself with Jesus. When men, then, stand up and tell us that Christ suffered only for the sake of sympathy with His kind, or only for loyalty to the truth, we have to tell them that this was not the whole of Christ’s own consciousness, this was not the whole of Christ’s own explanation. Suffering, which leads men into the sense of oneness with their kind, only made Him, as it grew the nearer and weighed the heavier, more emphatic upon His difference from other men. If He Himself, by His pity, by His labours of healing (as Matthew points out), and by all His intercourse with His people, penetrated more deeply into the participation of human suffering, the very days which marked with increasing force His sympathy with men, only laid more bare their want of sympathy with Him, their incapacity to follow into that unique conscience and understanding of a Passion, which He bore not only "with," but, as He said, "for" His brethren. "Who believed that which we heard, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? As to His generation, who reflected that for the transgression of my people He was stricken?" Again, while Christ indeed brought truth to earth from heaven, and was for truth’s sake condemned by men to die, the burden which He found waiting Him on earth, man’s sin, was ever felt by Him to be a heavier burden and responsibility than the delivery of the truth; and was in fact the thing, which, apart from the things for which men might put Him to death, remained the reason of His death in His own sight and in that of His Father. And He told men why He felt their sin to be so heavy, because it kept them so far from God, and this was His purpose, He said, in bearing it-that He might bring us back to God; not primarily that He might relieve us of the suffering which followed sin, though He did so relieve some when He pardoned them, but that He might restore

us to right relations with God, -might, like the Servant, "make many righteous." Now it was Christ’s confidence to be able to do this, which distinguished Him from all others, upon whom has most heavily fallen the conscience of their people’s sins, and who have most keenly felt the duty and commission from God of vicarious suffering. If, like Moses, one sometimes dared for love’s sake to offer his life for the life of his people, none, under the conscience and pain of their people’s sins, ever expressed any consciousness of thereby making their brethren righteous. On the contrary, even a Jeremiah, whose experience, as we have seen, comes so wonderfully near the picture of the Representative Sufferer in chapter 53, -even a Jeremiah feels, with the increase of his vicarious pain and conscience of guilt, only the more perplexed, only the deeper in despair, only the less able to understand God and the less hopeful to prevail with Him. But Christ was sure of His power to remove men’s sins, and was never more emphatic about that power than when He most felt those sins’ weight. And "He has seen His seed"; He "has made many righteous." We found it to be uncertain whether the penitent speakers in chapter 53 understood that the Servant by coming under the physical sufferings, which were the consequences of their sins, relieved them of these consequences; other passages in the prophecy would seem to imply that, while the Servant’s sufferings were alone valid for righteousness, they did not relieve the rest of the nation from suffering too. And so it would be going beyond what God has given us to know, if we said that God counts the sufferings on the Cross, which were endured for our sins, as an equivalent for, or as sufficient to do away with, the sufferings which these sins bring upon our minds, our bodies, and our social relations. Substitution of this kind is neither affirmed by the penitents who speak in the fifty-third of Isaiah, nor is it an invariable or essential part of the experience of those who have found forgiveness through Christ. Everyday penitents turn to God through Christ, and are assured of forgiveness, who feel no abatement in the rigour of the retribution of those laws of God, which they have offended; like David after his forgiveness, they have to continue to bear the consequences of their sins. But dark as this side of experience undoubtedly is, only the more conspicuously against the darkness does the other side of experience shine. By "believing what they have heard," reaching this belief through a quicker conscience and a closer study of Christ’s words about His death, men, upon whom conscience by itself and sore punishment have worked in vain, have been struck into penitence, have been assured of pardon, have been brought into right relations with God, have felt all the melting and the bracing effects of the knowledge that another has suffered in their stead. Nay, let us consider this-the physical consequences of their sins may have been left to be endured by such men, for no other reason than in order to make their new relation to God more sensible to them, while they feel those consequences no longer with the feeling of penalty, but with that of chastisement and discipline. Surely nothing could serve more strongly than this to reveal the new conscience towards God that has been worked within them. This inward "righteousness" is made more plain by the continuance of the physical and social consequences of their sins than it would have been had these consequences been removed. Thus Christ, like the Servant, became a force in the world, inheriting in the course of Providence a "portion with the great" and "dividing the spoils" of history "with the strong." As has often been said, His Cross is His Throne, and it is by His death that He has ruled the ages. Yet we must not understand this as if His Power was only or mostly shown in binding men, by gratitude for the salvation He won them, to own Him for their King. His power has been even more conspicuously proved in making His fashion of service the most fruitful and the most honoured among men. If men have ceased to turn from sickness with aversion or from weakness with contempt; if they have learned to see in all pain some law of God, and in vicarious suffering God’s most holy service; if patience and self-sacrifice have come in any way to be a habit of human life, -the power in this change has been Christ. But because these two-to say, "Thy will be done," and to sacrifice self-are for us men the hardest and the most unnatural of things to do,

Jesus Christ, in making these a conscience and a habit upon earth, has indeed shown Himself able to divide the spoil with the strong, has indeed performed the very highest Service for Man of which man can conceive.

Footnotes:

Isaiah 53:8 Or From arrest Isaiah 53:8 Or generation considered / that he was cut off from the land of the living, / that he was punished for the transgression of my people? Isaiah 53:10 Hebrew though you make Isaiah 53:11 Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint); Masoretic Text does not have the light of life. Isaiah 53:11 Or (with Masoretic Text) 11 He will see the fruit of his suffering / and will be satisfied Isaiah 53:11 Or by knowledge of him Isaiah 53:12 Or many Isaiah 53:12 Or numerous New International Version (NIV) Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.