|
The New Rick Livermore Site
Sunday, August 27, 2023
Devotional: Measureless Love
Greek Word Study ἀνακαλύπτω BDAG, STRONG, MOUNCE, VINE
I think you will like Logos! Get $100 off a Logos 10 base package (first-time base package purchasers only) from my link: https://logos.refr.cc/ricklivermore?t=em |
Albert Barnes In a search of Logos Bible Software
And the Lord hath laid on him. Lowth renders this, ‘Jehovah hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.’ Jerome (Vulg.) renders it, Posuit Dominus in eo—‘The Lord placed on him the iniquity of us all.’ The LXX. render it, Κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν—‘The Lord gave him for our sins.’ The Chaldee renders it, ‘From the presence of the Lord there was a willingness (רַעֲוָא) to forgive the sins of all of us on account of him.’ The Syriac has the same word as the Hebrew. The word here used (כָּגַע) means, properly, to strike upon or against, to impinge on any one or anything, as the Gr. πηγνύω. It is used in a hostile sense, to denote an act of rushing upon a foe (1 Sam. 22:17; to kill, to slay (Judg. 8:21; 15:12; 2 Sam. 1:15). It also means to light upon, to meet with any one (Gen. 28:11; 32:2). Hence also to make peace with any one; to strike a league or compact (Isa. 64:4). It is rendered, in our English version, ‘reacheth to’ (Josh. 19:11, 22, 26, 27, 34); ‘came,’ (Josh. 16:7); ‘met’ and ‘meet’ (Gen. 32:1; Ex. 23:4; Num. 35:19; Josh. 2:16; 18:10; Ruth 2:22; 1 Sam. 10:5; Isa. 64:5; Amos 5:19); ‘fall’ (Judg. 8:21; 1 Sam. 22:17; 2 Sam. 1:15; 1 Kings 2:29); ‘entreat’ (Gen. 18:8; Ruth 1:16; Jer. 15:11); ‘make intercession’ (Isa. 59:16; 53:12; Jer. 7:16; 27:18; 36:25); ‘he that comes betwixt’ (Job 36:22); and ‘occur’ (1 Kings 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 Jehovah 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 Notes on ver. 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 Jehovah 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 men. 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.*
7. He was oppressed (נִגַּשׂ). Lowth renders this, ‘It was exacted.’ Hengstenberg, ‘He was abased.’ Jerome (Vulg.), ‘He was offered because he was willing.’ The LXX. ‘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 here used (נָגַשׂ) properly means, to drive, to impel, to urge; and then to urge a debtor, to exact payment; or to exact tribute, a ransom, &c. (see Deut. 15:2, 3; 2 Kings 23:35.) Compare Job 3:18; Zech. 9:8; 10:4, where one form of the word is rendered ‘oppressor;’ Job 39:7, the ‘driver;’ Ex. 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 men, 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 עָנָה, in Niphil, means to be afflicted, to suffer, be oppressed or depressed (Ps. 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 on men the evils which they were inflicting on him (comp. Ps. 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 clamour 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, ch. 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 1 Pet. 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.
8. He was taken from prison. Marg. ‘A way 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 LXX. render it, ‘In his humiliation (ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει), his judgment (ἡ κρίσις αὐτοὺ), [his legal trial, Thomson], was taken away;’ and this translation was followed by Philip when he explained the passage to the eunuch of Ethiopia (Acts 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 (עֹצֶר, from עָצַר, to shut up, to close, means properly a shutting up, or closure; and then constraint, oppression, or vexation. In Ps. 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 oppression. 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 John 18:24; comp. Notes on Acts 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 (comp. Jer. 1:16; 2 Kings 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 any one 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?’ i.e., 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 for ever. To this, the only material objection is, that the word דּוֹר dōr (generation), is not elsewhere used 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.’—(Comm. in loco.) 2. Others translate it, ‘Who of his contemporaries will consider it,’ or ‘considered it?’ So Storr, Döderlin, Dathe, Rosenmüller 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 any one 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 defence 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 loco. So also Morerius and Cajetan understood it. But the word is never used in this sense. The word דּוֹר dōr (generation), means properly an age, generation of men; the revolving period or circle of human life; from דּוִּר dūr, a circle (Deut. 23:3, 4, 9; Eccl. 1:4). It then means, also, a dwelling, a habitation (Ps. 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 favour than any other.
For (פִי ki). This particle does not here denote the cause of what was just stated, but points out the connection (comp. 1 Sam. 2:21; Ezra 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 LXX. render it, ‘For his life is taken away from the earth.’ The word here used (גָּזַר), means properly to cut, to cut in two, to divide. It is applied to the act of cutting down trees with an axe (see 2 Kings 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, i.e., those with whom he was connected.’—(Hengstenberg.) Others, however, suppose that Jehovah 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. Marg. ‘The stroke upon him;’ i.e., the stroke came upon him. The word rendered in the margin ‘stroke’ (נֶגַע), denotes properly a blow (Deut. 17:8 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 ver. Isa. 53:4 (see Note on that verse). The Hebrew, which is rendered in the margin ‘upon him’ (לָמוֹ) 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 ch. Isa 52:13), as decisive of the controversy. To this word Rosenmüller, 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 Heb. Grammar, Leipzig, 1827, p. 365; Wiseman’s Lectures, pp. 331–333, Andover Edit., 1837; and Hengstenberg’s Christology, p. 523. In favour of regarding it as here used 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 מוֹ, attached to nouns, is certainly singular. Thus in Ps. 11:7, (פָנֵיטוֹ) ‘His face,’ speaking of God; Job 27:23, ‘Men shall clap their hands at him’ (עָלֵימוֹ), where it is certainly singular; Isa. 44:15, ‘He maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto’ 3. (לָמוֹ). 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 LXX. render it, Εἰς θάνατον—‘Unto death,’ and evidently read it as if it were an abbreviation of לָמוּת lâmŭth, 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.
9. And he made his grave with the wicked. Jerome renders this, Et dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte sua. The LXX. render it, ‘I will give the wicked instead of his burial (ἀντὶ τῆς ταφῆς), and the rich in the place, or instead of his death’ (ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου). 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 ܝܰܗ̱ܒ a grave,’ ܩܒܰܪܸܗ. 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 Rosenmüller, Gesenius, and Hengstenberg. The word rendered ‘he made’ (וַיִּתֵּן, from נָתַן nâthăn) 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 any one, i.e., the power; (c) to give, i.e., to turn the back; (d) to give, i.e., to yield fruit as a tree; (e) to give, i.e., to show compassion; (f) to give honour, praise, &c.; (g) to give into prison, or into custody. 2. To sit, place, put, lay; (a) to set before any one; (b) to set one over any person or thing; (c) to give one’s heart to anything; i.e., to apply the mind, &c. 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 Ps. 72:15. ‘to him shall be given,’ marg. ‘one shall give,’ Eccl. 2:21, meaning, that some one gave, or appointed his grave with the wicked; i.e., his grave was appointed with the wicked; or, 2. The phrase ‘my people’ (עַמִּי) 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 honourable 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 honourable burial. Hence it was said of Ahab (1 Kings 21:19), that the dogs should lick his blood; and of Jezebel that the dogs should eat her (1 Kings 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 Note on that place). Hence those who have been peculiarly 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 honourable 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 men, 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 John 19:31, it is said that 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 (עָשִׁיר). The words ‘he was,’ are here to be supplied. ‘But he was with a rich man in his death.’ The particle ו, 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; i.e., in his burial. The purpose which had been cherished in regard to his burial was not accomplished. The word עָשִׁיר (from עָשׁר, to be straight, to prosper, to be happy, and then to be rich), means properly the rich, and then the honourable 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 character, 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; i.e., 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. Marg. ‘Deaths’ (בְּמֹתָיו). Lowth renders this, ‘His tomb.’ He understands the letter בּ as radical and not servile; and supposes that the word is בָּמוֹתֹ. bâmōth (hills); i.e., 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 Œcolampadius, 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 בָּמְוֹת bâmōth is ever used except in one place (Ezek. 43:7, where it means also primarily high places, though there perhaps de-denoting a burial-place), in the sense of βωμός, 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 מָיֶת mâvĕth, or מוֹת mōth, plural מוֹתִים mōthīm, meaning the same as ‘after his death’—‘the grave.’ The plural is used instead of the singular in Ezek. 28:8–10; and also Job 21:32: ‘Yet he shall be brought to the grave;’ Marg. as Heb. ‘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 fulfilment of this may be seen in the account which is given of the manner of the burial of the Saviour by Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 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 (John 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 (עַל ăl). This word here has probably the signification of although. It is used for עַל אֲשֶׁר ăl ăshēr. Thus it is used in Job 16:17: ‘Not for any injustice in my hands;’ Heb. ‘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’ (1 Pet. 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?
Isa. 53:10. 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 honour (see Notes on 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 Jehovah. 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 dishonouring 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 Jehovah was pleased with it as a work of pure and disinterested love.
To bruise him (see Notes on ver. 5). The word here is the infinitive of Piel. ‘To bruise him, or his being bruised, was pleasing to Jehovah;’ 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 Jehovah 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 Is53:4. It means that it was by the agency, and in accordance with the design of Jehovah, that he was subjected to these great sorrows.
When thou shalt make his soul. Marg. ‘His soul shall make.’ According to the translation in the text, the speaker is the prophet, and it contains an address to Jehovah, and Jehovah is himself introduced as speaking in Isa. 53:11. According to the margin, Jehovah 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 LXX. render 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.’ Rosenmüller renders it, ‘If his soul, i.e., 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 Jehovah 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 here rendered ‘soul’ (נֶפֶשׁ) means properly breath, spirit, the life, the vital principle (Gen. 1:20–30; 9:4; Lev. 17:11; Deut. 12:23). It sometimes denotes the rational soul, regarded as the seat of affections and emotions of various kinds (Gen. 34:3; Ps. 86:4; Isa. 15:4; 42:1; Cant. 1:7; 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 (אָשָׁם). 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; 7:5; 14:21; 19:21; 1 Sam. 6:3, 8, 17). It is rendered ‘guiltiness’ (Gen. 26:10); ‘sin’ (Prov. 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 (2 Cor. 5:21), that God ‘made him to be sin for us’ (ἁμαρτίαν), i.e., a sin-offering; and he is called ἱλασμὸς and ἱλαστήριον, a propitiatory sacrifice for sins (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 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 men. 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 (אָשָׁם or ἱλκσμὸς) for sin? Such language is never applied to martyrs in the Bible; such language is never applied to them in the common discourses of men.
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 favours, and usually as the clearest proofs of the Divine love. ‘Children’s children are the crown of old men’ (Prov. 17:6). See Ps. 127:5; 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; 17:5, 6). In accordance with this, the Messiah is promised that he shall see a numerous spiritual posterity. A similar declaration occurs in Ps. 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 favour. Thus, in 1 Kings 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 Deut. 25:15; Ps. 21:4; 91:16; Prov. 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 Jehovah; the work which he desires and appoints.
Shall prosper (see Notes on ch. 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 Jehovah designed and desired would prosper under his administration.
Isa. 53:11. He shall see of the travail of his soul. This is the language of Jehovah, 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 here rendered ‘travail’ (עָמָל), denotes properly labour, toil; wearisome labour; labour and toil which produce exhaustion; and hence sometimes vexation, sorrow, grief, trouble. It is rendered ‘labour’ (Ps. 90:10; 105:44; Jer. 20:18; Eccl. 2:11–20); ‘perverseness’ (Num. 21:21); ‘sorrow’ (Job 3:10); ‘wickedness’ (Job 4:8); ‘trouble’ (Job 5:6, 7; Ps. 73:5); ‘mischief’ (Job 15:35; Ps. 7:13; 10:7–14; 94:20); ‘travail,’ meaning labour, or toil (Eccl. 4:4–6); ‘grievousness’ (Isa. 10:1); ‘iniquity’ (Hab. 1:13); ‘toil’ (Gen. 41:51); ‘pain’ (Ps. 25:18); and ‘misery’ (Prov. 31:7). The word ‘travail’ with us has two senses, first, labour with pain, severe toil; and secondly, the pains of childbirth. The word is used here to denote excessive toil, labour, weariness; and refers to the arduous and wearisome labour 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 labours 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 husbandman who labours 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 labour, 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 (Phil. 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 any one can be justified. Thus the Saviour says (John 17:3), ‘And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ Men 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 Notes on ch. Isa. 52:13. The word ‘righteous’ (צַדִּיק), Lowth supposes should be omitted. His reasons are—1. That three MSS., 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 (יִצְּדִּיק). 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 intrusted 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 (יַצְֽדִּיק). The word צָדַק 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 δικαιῶ. On the meaning of the Greek word, see Notes on Rom. 1:17. The Hebrew word means to be right, straight, as if spoken of a way (Ps. 23:3). Hence, 1. To be just, righteous, spoken of God in dispensing justice (Ps. 55:6); and of laws (Ps. 19:10). 2. To have a just cause, to be in the right; (a) in a forensic sense (Gen. 28:2–6; Job 9:16–20; 10:15; 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; 23:9; Ps. 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 men 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 favour 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 not 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 men 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 here used 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 Notes on ver. 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; i.e., 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 Notes on ver. 6). It is in connection with this that men 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 men 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 ecclesiæ. Luther.*
Isa. 53:12. Therefore will I divide him. I will divide for him (לוֹ lo). 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. Rosenmüller renders this, Dispertsam ei multos—‘I will divide to him the many;’ i.e., he shall have many as his portion. Hengstenberg, ‘I will give him the mighty for a portion.’ So the LXX. ‘Therefore he shall inherit (κληρονομήσει) 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 (בָרַבִּים) and that this interpretation is demanded by the use of the preposition ב in this case, and by the corresponding word אֶת 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 men of the earth. The word rendered here ‘the great’ (רַבּים răbbīm), may mean either many or powerful and great. The parallelism here with the word עֲצוּמִים (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 LXX., 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 for ever 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 (נַפְשׁוֹ; see Notes on ver. 10), is derived from the fact that the life was supposed to reside in the blood (see Notes on 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 (Mark 15:28).
And he bare the sin of many (נָשָׁא nâsâ). On the meaning of this word ‘bare,’ see Notes on ver. 4; and on the doctrine involved by his bearing sin, see the Note on ver. 4–6, 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 men, and extend the true religion afar.
And made intercession for the transgressors. On the meaning of the word here rendered ‘made intercession’ (יַפְגִּיעַ), see Notes on ver. 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 any one, 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 men (see Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 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 men 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 deep’y interesting and most important portion of the Bible. Assuming now (see the remarks prefixed to ch. Isa. 52:13, sq.) 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 Notes on vers. 2, 3, 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 fulfil 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 men, 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 he 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 men 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 fulfilment 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 fulfil 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 would 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 fulfil 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 fulfilment—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 men. 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 men; 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 here used 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 men.
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 contemplation 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 till 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 he 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.
I think you will like Logos! Get $100 off a Logos 10 base package (first-time base package purchasers only) from my link: https://logos.refr.cc/ricklivermore?t=em |
Announcing: Commissioned partnership between Logos Bible Software and Rick Livermore
Links to Logos Bible Software for ebooks from Rick Livermore (commissioned agent for Logos)
About Me
- Webmaster220
- San Juan Capistrano, California, United States
- Jesus Christ is alive and living in the hearts and lives of billions of Christians. I am interested in what He is saying and doing in the lives of those who know and love Him and interested in being a familiar and trusted blogger about Him