Ver. 1. "_And I put my words in thy mouth, and cover thee in the shadow
of mine hand, that thou mayest plant the heaven and lay the foundation
of the earth, and say unto Zion: Thou art my people._"
The discourse in chap. li. to lii. 12 is not addressed to the whole of
Israel, but to the _election_. They are, in chap. li. 1, called those
that follow after righteousness, that seek the Lord; in ver. 7, those
who know righteousness, in whose heart is the law of the Lord. These
the Prophet seeks to comfort and strengthen by pointing to the future
glorious mercies of the Lord.
The Section chap. li. 4-8 comforts the elect by the coming of the
salvation, by the dominion of the people of God over the whole world;
points to the foundation of these successes, viz., the eternity of the
salvation and righteousness for the Church; and exhorts them that,
having this eternal salvation before them, they might patiently bear
the temporal reproach of the world given over to destruction.
In vers. 9-11, the Church calls upon the Lord to do as He had promised;
and this prayer, founded upon His almighty love, which in times past
had so gloriously manifested itself, passes over, at the close, into
hope and confidence.
In vers. 12-16 follows the answer of the Lord, who exhorts the Church
to be stedfast, by reminding her that her opponents are weak mortals,
while the omnipotent God is her protector; and announces that, with the
same omnipotence which He manifests in nature, He would soon bring
about her deliverance, [Pg 258] and that Ho would do so by His Servant,
in whom all His promises should be Yea and Amen, and whom at the close
Ho addresses, committing to Him the work of redemption. According to
the current opinion, the discourse in ver. 16 is addressed to the
people. But, in that case, we must also make up our minds to view the
Infinitive with [Hebrew: l] a Gerund, "planting," or "by planting,"--a
supposition which is beset with great difficulties. It was only by an
inconsistency that _Stier_, who, in chap. xlix. rejects this view,
could here agree to it. And, farther, it is obvious that the words at
the close: "Thou art my people," are the _words_ which, according to
the commencement of the verse, are put into the mouth of the speaker,
and that hence, the planting of heaven and earth, which prepares for
this speaking, belongs to Him. If this be not supposed, one does not at
all see to what the: "I put my words in thy mouth," is to refer. What
farther militates against this explanation is the unmistakable relation
of the passage before us to chaps. xlix., l., which it is impossible to
refer to the people. The same reason is also against the supposition of
_Gesenius_ and _Umbreit_, that the discourse is addressed to the
prophetical order. Nor is it defensible to explain: "to plant the
heaven and lay the foundation of the earth," by: to establish the new
state of Israel. To these arguments it may be added that, according to
this explanation, the words: "Thou art my people," are unsuitable; for
Israel was not the people of the Prophet, but the people of God and of
His Servant. The discourse is addressed rather to the Messiah, compare
the parallel passages, chap. xlix., especially ver. 2, and chap. l.,
especially vers. 4 and 5. Considering the dramatic character of the
whole section, the change of the person addressed is a circumstance of
very little importance; and chap. lix. 21, where the word of God is put
into the mouth of Jacob, is parallel in appearance only. Even _a
priori_ we could not expect that, in this context, treating, as it
does, of the personal Messiah, the whole section, chap. li. 1 to lii.
12, should lack all reference to the Messiah. By the words: "I put my
word in thy mouth," the Messiah is appointed to be, in the highest
sense, the speaker of God; the realization of the divine counsels is
committed to Him. For the fact that it is not mere words which are here
treated of, but such as are living [Pg 259] and powerful, like those
which God spoke at the creation, becomes evident by the circumstance
that the planting of heaven and earth is attributed to the Servant of
God as bearer of His words,--a thing which cannot be done by the
ordinary word; comp. Isa. xl. 4, according to which the Messiah smites
the earth with the rod of His mouth, and slays the wicked with the
breath of His lips.--_I cover thee in the shadow of mine hand_,
designates the divine protection and providence which are indispensable
in order that the Servant of God may fulfil His vocation to be God's
speaker. The words form an accessory thought only: I appoint thee my
speaker whom, as such, I will keep and protect in order that thou,
etc.;--for that which follows is that which the Servant of God is to
_perform_ as His Speaker. By the word of Omnipotence committed to Him,
He plants a new heaven, and lays the foundation of a new earth, and
invests Zion with the dignity of the people of God.--To plant the
heaven and lay the foundation of the earth, is equivalent to founding a
_new_ heaven, a _new_ earth; comp. chaps. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22; Rev. xxii.
For, as long as the old heaven and the old earth exist, a planting and
founding activity cannot take place in reference to heaven and earth.
All that is created, in so far as it opposes the Kingdom of God, is
unfit for being an abode of the glorified Kingdom of God, and must be
shaken and broken to pieces, in order that this Kingdom may enter into
its natural conditions, and find a worthy abode. The activity of God
and His Servant, necessary for this purpose, will most completely take
place at the end of days, at the [Greek: palingenesia] announced by the
Lord, Matt. xix. 28; compare what is said in chap. xi., in reference to
the entire change of the conditions of the earth. But in a preparatory
manner, this activity pervades all history. The heaven, according to
the _usus loquendi_ of Scripture, and also of Isaiah, is not only the
natural heaven, but also the heaven of princes, the whole order of
rulers and magistrates, (comp. my remarks on Rev. vi. 13), whose form
and relation to the Kingdom of God underwent a great change, even at
the first appearance of Christ.--The _saying_, according to the
preceding: That thou mayest plant, &c., is not to be referred to the
mere announcing; but, according to the frequent _usus loquendi_, it
includes the performing also, just as _e.g._, in ver. 12, the [Pg 260]
comforting is effected by a discourse _in deeds_. The distinction
between, and separation of word and deed belongs to human weakness. God
speaks and it is done; and what holds true of His word, applies also to
the word of His Servant, which he has put into His mouth.
CHAPTERS LII. 13-LIII. 12.
This section forms the climax of the prophecies of Isaiah, of
prophetism in general, of the whole Old Testament, as appears even from
the circumstance that the Lord and His Apostles refer to no part of the
Old Testament so frequently and so emphatically as to this,--a section
which, according to _Luther's_ demand, every Christian should have
committed _verbatim_. Christ is here, with wonderful clearness,
described to us in His highest work--His atoning suffering.
In vers. 13-15 of chap. lii. Jehovah speaks. These verses contain a
short summary of what is enlarged upon in chap. liii. The very deepest
humiliation of the Servant of God shall be followed by His highest
glorification. In consequence of the salvation wrought out and
accomplished by Him, the nations of the earth and their kings shall
reverently submit to Him. In chap. liii. 1-10, the Prophet utters the
sentiments of the _elect_ in Israel. At first, in His humiliation, they
had not recognized the Redeemer; but now they acknowledged Him as their
Redeemer and Saviour, and saw that He had taken upon Him His sufferings
for our salvation, and that they had a vicarious character. The
commencement forms, in ver. 1, the lamentation that so many do not
believe in the report of the Servant of God, that so many do not behold
the glory of God manifested in Him. In vers. 2 and 3, we have the cause
of this fact, viz., the appearance of the Divine, in the form of a
Servant--the offence of the cross. In lowliness, without any outward
splendour, the Servant of God shall go about. Sufferings, heavier than
ever befel any man, shall be inflicted upon Him. In vers. 4-6, the
vicarious import of these sufferings is pointed out. The people, seeing
his sufferings, [Pg 261] and not knowing the cause of them, imagined
that they were the well-merited punishment of His own transgressions
and iniquities. But the Church, now brought to believe in Him, see that
they were wrong in imagining thus. It was not His own transgressions
and iniquities which were punished in Him, but ours. His sufferings
were voluntarily undergone by Him, and for the salvation of mankind,
which else would have been given up to destruction. God himself was
anxious to re-unite to himself those who were separated from Him, and
who walked in their own ways. To the vicarious import of the sufferings
of the Servant of God corresponds, according to ver. 7, His conduct: He
suffers quietly and patiently. In vers. 8-10 we have the reward which
the Servant of God receives for His passive obedience. God takes Him to
himself, and He receives an unspeakably great generation, ver. 8, the
ominous burial with the rich, ver. 9, numerous seed and long life, and
that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; ver. 10. In
vers. 11 and 12, the Lord again appears as speaking, and confirms that
which has been declared by the faithful Church.
The two verses of the close, together with the exordium, chap. lii.
13-15, occupy five verses--five being the signature of the half and
incomplete. The main body, ten verses, is divided into seven referring
to the humiliation and suffering, and three referring to the exaltation
of the Servant of God. The seven are, as usual, divided into three and
four. In the three verses, the suffering of the Servant of God is
exhibited; in the four, its cause and vicarious import.
By the "_Behold_," with which the prophecy opens, the Prophet intimates
that we have here before us a vision beheld by him in the spirit. As
the period in which the Prophet beholds the vision, we have to suppose
the time between the suffering and the glorification of the Servant of
God. The glorification is described chiefly by Futures, the suffering
by Preterites; but, from the fact that this stand-point is not strictly
adhered to, it is evident that we have to do with a stand-point which
is purely ideal.
The section forms, in a formal and material point of view, a whole by
itself; but, notwithstanding its absolute independence, it must stand
in a certain connection with what precedes and what follows. Let us,
therefore, now consider the relation [Pg 262] in which it stands to the
portions surrounding it. Its relation to what goes before is thus
strikingly designated by _Calvin_: "After Isaiah had spoken of the
restoration of the Church, he passes over to Christ, in whom all things
are gathered together. He speaks of the prosperous success of the
Church, at a time when it was least to be expected, which calls them
back to their King, by whom all things are to be restored, and exhorts
them to expect Him." The preceding section begins with chap. li. 1. We
have already stated the contents up to li. 16. Vers. 17-23 are closely
connected with the preceding, in which salvation and mercy were
announced to the Church of God. This announcement is here continued in
new forms. Chap. lii. 1-6: As the Lord had formerly delivered His
people out of the hand of Egypt and Asshur, so, now too, He will
deliver them. Zion appears under the image of a woman imprisoned,
fettered, lying powerlessly in a miserable garment, on a dirty floor,
and is called upon to arise, to strengthen herself, to throw off her
bands, to put on festive garments, inasmuch as the time of her
deliverance from the misery is at hand. Vers. 7-10: In the last words
of ver. 6, the Lord had announced that He was already at hand for the
redemption of His Church. This salvation now presents itself vividly to
the spiritual eye of the Prophet, and is graphically described by him.
He beholds a messenger hastening with the glad tidings to Jerusalem;
_watchmen_, who are standing on the ruins of Jerusalem in longing
expectation, discover him at a distance, and exultingly call upon
the ruins to shout aloud for joy.[1] "How beautiful"--so verse 7
runs--"upon the mountains the feet of the Messenger of joy, that
announceth peace, that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth
salvation, that saith unto Zion: Thy God reigneth." In Rom. x. 15, the
Apostle refers this passage to the preaching of the Gospel. That is
more than mere application; it is real explanation. The deliverance
from Babylon is only the first faint beginning of the salvation, which
the Prophet has before his eye in its [Pg 263] whole extent. As the
substance of the salvation, the circumstance that Zion's God reigneth,
is intimated. There is, in this, an allusion to the formula which was
used in proclaiming the ascension of earthly kings to the throne. Even
this allusion shows that the point here in question is not the
continuous government of the Lord, but a new, glorious manifestation of
His government, as it were a new ascension to the throne. This "the
Lord reigneth," found a faint beginning only of its confirmation and
fulfilment in the destruction of Babylon, and the deliverance of
Israel; but as to its full import, it is Messianic. In Christ, the Lord
has truly assumed the government, and will still more gloriously reign
in future.--Ver. 8: "The _voice_ of thy watchmen! they lift up the
voice, they shout together; for they see eye to eye that the Lord
returneth to Zion." The watchmen are ideal persons, representatives of
the truth that the Lord is around His people, and that the
circumstances of His Church are to Him a constant call to help; or they
may be viewed as the holy angels who, as the servants of the watchmen
of Israel, form the protecting power for the Church. These watchmen
continue to stand even on the destroyed walls; for, even in her misery,
the Lord is Zion's God. The anxious waiting eye of the watchmen, and
the mercy-beaming eye of God returning to Zion meet one another. The
returning here is opposed to the forsaking, over which Zion had
lamented in chap. xlix. 14. Instead of the concealed presence of the
Lord during the misery, which, to the feeling, so easily appears as
entire absence, there comes the presence of God manifested in the
salvation. This return of the Lord to Zion truly took place in Christ
only, Luke i. 68.--Ver. 9: "Break forth into joy, shout together, ye
ruins of Jerusalem, for the Lord comforteth Jerusalem, redeemeth His
people." This call goes far beyond the time of the restoration of
Jerusalem after the exile; for, even at that time, the spiritual eye
still beheld ruins, where the bodily eye saw firm, walled buildings.
The condition of the Kingdom of God was still miserable, the eye
of the faithful remained still fixed, with hopes and longings, upon the
Future which was to bring, and has brought, _true_ comfort and
consolation.--Ver. 10: "The Lord maketh bare His Holy arm in the eyes
of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see the salvation of
our God." The making bare of the arm of the Lord designates the
manifestation, by deeds, of [Pg 264] the divine power and glory, such
as took place by the sending of Christ, and by the wonderful elevation
of the Church over the world,--an elevation which has it roots in Him;
comp. chap. liii. 1. In vers. 11 and 12 there is still the exhortation
to the Church of the Lord that, by true repentance, she should worthily
prepare for the impending salvation.
After the Prophet has, in chap. li. 1 to lii. 12, described the
transition of the Church of God from humiliation and sorrow to
glorification, it is quite natural that he should now turn from the
members to the Head, through whose mediation this transition was to be
accomplished, after the same contrast had been exhibited in Himself
There is the most intimate connection between the Church of God and His
Servant; for, all that He does and suffers. He does and suffers for
her; and all that befals her is prefigured by the way in which He has
been led by the Lord.
With what follows, too, the section before us stands in a close
relation. The glorification of the Servant of God described at the
close of chap. liii., is, in Him, bestowed at the same time, upon the
Church. Thus chap. liv., in which the Church is comforted by pointing
to her future glorification, is connected with the preceding. The
Church of the Lord appears here as a woman who, after having been put
away by her husband, and after having, for a long time, lived in a
childless, sorrowful solitude, is again received by him, and sees
herself surrounded by numerous children. The time of punishment is now
at an end, and the time of mercy is breaking.
Chap. lii. 13. "_Behold, my Servant shall act wisely, He shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high._"
[Hebrew: hwkil] always means "to act wisely" (LXX. [Greek: sunêsei];
_Aquil. Sym._: [Greek: episthêmonisthêsetai]), never "to be successful"
(the Chaldean, whom most of the modern interpreters follow, renders it
by [Hebrew: iclH]), and this ascertained sense (comp. Remarks on Jer.
iii. 15; xxiii. 5, where the verb is used of the Messiah, just as it is
here), must here be maintained so much the more, that our passage
evidently refers to David, the former servant of God. Of him it is said
in 1 Sam. xviii. 14, 15: "And David was acting wisely in all his ways,
and the Lord was with him. And Saul saw that he was acting very wisely,
and was afraid of him;" comp. 1 Kings ii. 3, where David says to
Solomon: "And keep the charge of the Lord thy God ... in order [Pg 265]
that thou mayest act wisely in all that thou doest, and whithersoever
thou turnest thyself;" Ps. ci. 2, where David, speaking in the name of
his family, says: "I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way;" and 2
Kings xviii. 7, where it is said of Hezekiah: "And the Lord was with
him, and whithersoever he went forth, he acted wisely." According to
these fundamental and parallel passages, the expression, "He shall act
wisely" refers to the administration of government, and is equivalent
to: He shall rule wisely like his ancestor David. _Stier_ is wrong in
opposing the view, that the Messiah here presents himself as King. He
says: "The King has here stepped behind the Prophet, Witness, Martyr,
Saviour;" but in chap. liii. 12, the royal office surely comes out with
sufficient distinctness. We must never forget that the different
offices of Christ are intimately connected with one another by the
unity of the person. The _prosperity and success_ which the Servant of
God enjoys, are first brought before us and detailed in what follows;
and appear, just as in the fundamental passages quoted, as the
consequence of acting wisely: "My Servant shall, after having, through
the deepest humiliation, attained to dominion, administer it well, and
thereby attain to the highest glory." To the words: "He shall act
wisely" correspond, afterwards, the words: "The pleasure of the Lord
shall prosper by His hand," chap. liii. 10. The fact that a person acts
wisely is, in a twofold aspect, a fruit of his connection with God:
_first_, because God is the source and fountain of all wisdom, and,
_secondly_, because from God the blessing proceeds which always
accompanies his doings. The ungodly is by God involved in circumstances
which, notwithstanding all his wisdom, make him appear as a fool.
Compare only chap. xix. 11: "The princes of Zoan become fools, the
counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish; how can
ye say unto Pharaoh: a son of the wise am I, a (spiritual) son of the
(wise) kings of ancient times?" comp. ver. 13; Job xii. 17, 20; Eccles.
ix. 11. In the second clause the Prophet puts together the verbs which
denote elevation, and still adds [Hebrew: mad] "very" in order most
emphatically to point out the glory of the exaltation of the Servant of
God.
Ver. 14. "_As many were shocked at thee--so marred from man was His
look, and His form from the sons of man_--Ver. 15. _So shall He
sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their_ [Pg 266] _mouths on
account of Him, for they who had not been told, they see, and they who
did not hear, they perceive._"
Ver. 14 contains the _protasis_, ver. 15 the _apodosis_. The former
describes the deep humiliation, the latter the highest glorification of
the Servant of God. The _so_ in ver. 14 begins a parenthesis, in which
the reason why many were shocked is stated, and which goes on to the
end of the verse. In keeping with the dramatic character of the
prophetic discourse, the Lord addresses His Servant in ver. 14: "At
thee;" while, in ver. 15, He speaks of Him in the third person: "He
shall sprinkle;" "on account of _Him_" This change has been occasioned
by the parenthetical clause which contains a remark of the Prophet, and
in which, therefore, the Servant of God could not but be spoken of in
the third person. _Hävernick_ and _Stier_ refuse to admit the existence
of a parenthesis. Their reasons: "Parentheses are commonly an
ill-invented expedient only," and: "It is not likely that the same
particle should have a different signification in these two clauses
following immediately the one upon the other," are not entirely
destitute of force, but are far-outweighed by counter-arguments. They
say that the _apodosis_ begins with the first [Hebrew: kN], and that in
ver. 15 a second _apodosis_ follows. But no tolerable thought comes out
in this way;--it is hard to co-ordinate two _apodoses_,--and the
transition from the 2d to the 3d person remains unaccounted for.
[Hebrew: wmM] "to be desolated" is then transferred to the spiritual
desolation and devastation, and receives the signification "to be
horrified," "to be shocked."--Who the many are that are shocked and
offended at the miserable appearance of the Servant of God, appears
from chap. xlix. 4, according to which the opposition to the Servant of
God has its seat among the covenant people; farther, from the contrast
in ver. 15 of the chapter before us, according to which the respectful
surrender belongs to the _Gentiles_; and farther, from chap. liii. 1,
where the unbelief of the former covenant-people is complained of; from
vers. 2-4, where even the believers from among Israel complain that
they had had difficulty in surmounting the offence of the Cross.
[Hebrew: mwHt], properly "corruption," stands here as _abstractum pro
concreto_, in the signification, "corrupted," "marred." As to its form,
it is in the _status constructus_ which, in close connections, can
stand even [Pg 267] before Prepositions. From the corresponding
[Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM] in chap. liii. 3, it appears that the Preposition
stands here only for the sake of distinctness, and might as well have
been omitted. The [Hebrew: mN] serves for designating the distance,
"from man," "from the sons of men," so that He is no more a man, does
no more belong to the number of the sons of men. The correctness of
this explanation appears from chap. liii. 3, and Ps. xxii. 7: "I am a
worm and no man." As regards the sense of the whole parenthesis, many
interpreters remark, that we must not stop at the bodily disfiguration
of the Servant of God, but that the expression must, at the same time,
be understood figuratively. Thus, Luther says: "The Prophet does not
speak of the form of Christ as to His person, but of the political and
royal form of a Ruler, who is to become an earthly King, and does not
appear in royal form, but as the meanest of all servants; so that no
more despised man than He has been seen in the world." But the Prophet
evidently speaks, in the first instance, of the bodily appearance only;
and we can the less think of a figurative sense, that bodily
disfiguration forms the climax of misery, and that, in this _part_, the
_whole_ of the miserable condition is delineated. Even the severe
inward sufferings are a matter of course, if the outward ones have
risen to such a pitch. How both of these go hand in hand is seen from
Ps. xxii. These interpreters are, farther, wrong in this respect, that
they refer the pretended figurative expression solely to the lowliness
and humility of the Messiah, and not, at the same time, to His
_sufferings_ also. Thus, among the ancient interpreters, it was viewed
by _Jerome_: "The horrid appearance of His form is not thereby
indicated, but that He came in humility and poverty;" and among recent
interpreters by _Martini_: "The sense of the passage does not properly
refer to the deformity of the face, but to the whole external weak,
poor, and humble condition." But, for that, the expression is by far
too strong. Mere lowliness is no object of horror (comp. 1 Cor. i. 23,
according to which it is the _Cross_ which offends the Jews); it does
not produce a deformity of the countenance; it cannot produce the
effect that the Servant of God should, as it were, cease to be a man.
All this suggests an unspeakable _suffering_ of the Servant of God, and
that, moreover, a suffering which, in the first instance, [Pg 268]
manifested itself upon His own holy body. _Farther_--We must also take
into consideration that the _sprinkling_, in ver. 15, has for its
background the shedding of blood, and is the fruit of it, at first
concealed. If any doubt should yet remain, it would be removed by the
subsequent detailed representation of that which is here given in
outline merely. The sole reason of that narrow view is, that
interpreters did not understand the fundamental relation of the section
under consideration to the subsequent section; that they did not
perceive that, here, we have in a complete sketch what there is given
in detail and expansion.--Ver. 15. The verb [Hebrew: nzh] occurs in
very many passages, and signifies in _Hiphil_, everywhere, "to
sprinkle." It is especially set apart and used for the sprinkling with
the blood of atonement, and the water of purification. When "the
anointed priest" had sinned, he took of the blood of the _sacrifice_,
and _sprinkled_ it before the vail of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 6; comp.
v. 16, 17. The high priest had, every year, on the great day of
atonement, to sprinkle the _blood_ before the Ark of the Covenant, in
order to obtain forgiveness for the people. Lev. xvi. 14, comp. also
vers. 18, 19: "And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it (the altar)
with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the
uncleanness of the children of Israel." In the same manner the verb is
used of the sprinkling of blood upon the healed leper, Lev. xiv. 7, and
frequently. According to Numb. xix. 19, the _clean_ person shall
_sprinkle_ upon the unclean, on the third day, and on the seventh day,
"with the water in which are the ashes of the red heifer" when any one
has become unclean by touching a dead body. The outward material
purification frequently serves in the Old Testament to denote the
spiritual purification. Thus, _e.g._, in Ps. i. 9: "Purge me with
hyssop, and I shall be clean;" Ezek. xxxvi. 25: "And I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness." In
all those passages there lies, everywhere, at the foundation an
allusion to the Levitical purifications (the two last quoted especially
refer to Numb. xix.); and this allusion is by no means so to be
understood, as if he who makes the allusion were drawing the material
into the spiritual sphere. On the contrary, he uses as a figure that
which is, in the law, used symbolically. All the laws of purification
in the Pentateuch [Pg 269] have a symbolical and typical character.
That which was done to the outward impurity was, in point of fact, done
to the _sin_ which the people of the Old Testament, well versed in the
symbolical language, beheld under its image. Hence, here also, the
_sprinkling_ has the signification of _cleansing_ from sin. The
expression indicates that Christ is the true High Priest, to whom the
ordinary priesthood with its sprinklings typically pointed. The
expression is a summary of that which, in the following chapter, we are
told regarding the expiation through the suffering and death of the
Servant of God. The words: "When His soul maketh a sin-offering," in
ver. 10, and: "He shall justify," in ver. 11, correspond. Among the
ancient expositors, this translation is followed by the Syriac and
Vulgate, the _asperget_ of which _Jerome_ thus explains: "He shall
sprinkle many nations, cleansing them by His blood, and in baptism
consecrating them to the service of God." In the New Testament, it is
alluded to in several passages. Thus, in 1 Pet. i. 2, where the Apostle
speaks of the [Greek: rhantismos haimatos Iêsou Christou]. Farther, in
Heb. x. 22: [Greek: erhrantismenoi tas kardias apo suneidêseôs
ponêras]; xii. 24: [Greek: kai haimati rhantismou kreitton lalounti
para ton Abel], and also in chap. ix. 13, 14. Among Christian
interpreters, this view was always the prevailing one, was indeed the
view held by the Church. _Schröder observ. ad origin. Hebr._ c. viii. §
10, raised some objections which were eagerly laid hold of, and
increased by the rationalistic interpreters. Even some sound orthodox
expositors allowed themselves to be thereby dazzled. _Stier_ declares
"that, for this time, he must take the part of modern Exegesis against
the prevailing tradition of the Church." Yet his disrelish for the
doctrine of the atonement held by the Church has no doubt exercised a
considerable influence in this matter; and _Hofmann_, too, in so
decidedly rejecting this explanation, which rests on such strong
arguments, and is not touched by any weighty counter-arguments, seems
not to have been guided by exegetical reasons only. But let us submit
these objections to a closer examination. 1. "The verb ought not to be
construed with the Accusative of the thing to be sprinkled, but with
[Hebrew: el]." _Reinke_ (in his Monograph on Is. liii.) brings forward,
against this objection, the passage Lev. iv. 16, 17; but he is wrong in
this, inasmuch as [Hebrew: at] is there not the [Pg 270] sign of the
Accusative, but a Preposition. [Hebrew: at pni] in the signification
"before," is, elsewhere also, very frequently used. But even _Gesenius_
is compelled to agree with _Simonis_.[2] and to acknowledge that, in
the proper name [Hebrew: izih] the verb is connected with an
Accusative. The deviation is there still greater, inasmuch as the _Kal_
is, at the same time, used transitively. But even apart from that, such
a deviation cannot appear strange. It has an analogy in chap. liii. 11,
where [Hebrew: hcdiq], which everywhere else is construed with the
Accusative, is followed by [Hebrew: l]; and likewise in [Hebrew: rpa],
followed by [Hebrew: l] in chap. liii. 5. The signification of the
verb, in such cases, undergoes a slight modification. [Hebrew: hzh]
with [Hebrew: el] means "to sprinkle;" with the Accusative, "to
sprinkle upon." This modification of the meaning has the analogy of
other languages in its favour. In the Ethiopic, the verb [Hebrew: nzH],
which corresponds to the Hebrew [Hebrew: nzh], is used of the
sprinkling of both persons and things; Heb. ix. 19, xi. 28; Ps. li. 9.
In Latin, we may say: _spargere aquam_, but also _spargere corpus
aqua_; _aspergere quid alicui_, but also _re aliquem_, _conspergere_,
_perspergere_, _respergere quem_. "Why should not this be allowed to
the Jews also,"--remarks _Köcher_--"who have to make up for the defect
of compound verbs by the varied use of simple verbs?" But the Prophet
had a special reason, in the liberty specially afforded by the higher
style, for deviating from the ordinary connection. The [Hebrew: el] had
to be avoided, because, had it been put, the perception of the
correspondence of the subsequent [Hebrew: eliv] with the [Hebrew:
eliK], in ver. 14, would have become more difficult.--2. It is asserted
that it is against the connection; that the contrast to [Hebrew: mwM]
induces us to expect something corresponding. _Beck_ says: "A change in
those who formerly abhorred the Servant is to be expressed here, not _a
deed by the Servant himself_." If there were here, indeed, a contrast
intended to the many who formerly were shocked, we might answer that,
indirectly, the words: "He shall sprinkle," suggest, indeed, an
opposite conduct of the "many Gentiles." No one is cleansed by the
Servant of God, who does not allow himself to be cleansed by [Pg 271]
Him. But no one will desire to be cleansed by Him, who does not put his
whole trust in Him, who does not recognize Him as his King and Lord. To
the contempt and horror with which the Jews shrink back from the
Messiah in His humiliation, would thus be opposed the faithful, humble
confidence, with which the heathens draw near to the glorified Messiah.
But the fact that the real contrast to the [Hebrew: wmmv] is not
[Hebrew: izh], but rather [Hebrew: iqpcv], is clearly shown by [Hebrew:
eliv], which corresponds with [Hebrew: eliK]. The [Hebrew: izh]
corresponds rather to: "He was disfigured." Just as this states the
cause of their being shocked, so in: "He shall sprinkle," the cause of
the shutting of the mouth is stated. This is also seen from a
comparison of chap. liii. 3, 4. His sufferings appeared formerly as the
proof that He was hated by God. Now that the vicarious value of His
suffering manifests itself, it becomes the reason of humble, respectful
submission. Just as, formerly, many were shocked at Him, because he was
so disfigured, so, now, even kings shall shut their mouth at Him on
account of His atonement. Moreover, one does not exactly see how this
reason could be brought forward, as, in a formal point of view, there
is, at all events, "a deed by the Servant himself" before us, in
whatever way we may view the [Hebrew: izh].--3. "If _sprinkling_ were
meant to be equivalent to cleansing by blood, the matter of
purification could not be omitted. If it were objected to this, that
the noun 'blood' might easily be supplied from the verb's being
ordinarily used of cleansing with blood, the objection would be of no
weight, inasmuch as sprinkling was done not only with blood, but also
with water and oil." But the sprinkling with _oil_, denoting
sanctification, appears only quite isolated, and has for its foundation
the sprinkling with blood, comp. Exod. xxix. 21: "And thou shalt take
of the blood which is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and
sprinkle it upon Aaron, and he shall be hallowed." The sprinkling with
_water_ has likewise the shedding of blood for its foundation. It was
done with such water only, as had in it the ashes of the sin-offering
of the red heifer. But the Prophet has certainly on purpose made no
express mention of the blood, because that water, too, should be
included. This fact, that the sprinkling here comprehends both, was
perceived by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in chap. ix.
13, 14: [Greek: ei gar to haima] [Pg 272] [Greek: taurôn kai tragôn kai
spodos damaleôs rhantizousa tous kekoinômenous hagiazei pros tên tês
sarkos katharotêta. mallon to haima tou Christou ... kathariei tên
suneidêsin hêmôn apo nekrôn ergôn eis to latreuein Theô zônti.] The
defilement by dead bodies, against which the water of purification was
specially used, is the most significant symbol of sinners and sins.--4.
"It is, in general, not probable that the Servant of God, who farther
down is described as a sacrificial beast (!),--who, by taking upon
Himself the sins of His people, dies for them, should here appear as
the High Priest justifying them." Thus _Umbreit_ argues. But in
opposition to this view, it is sufficient to refer to: "He shall
justify," in chap. liii. 11, which is parallel to "He shall sprinkle."
That which, in the typical sacrifices, is separated, is, in the
antitypical, most closely connected. Even at the very first beginnings
of sacred history, it was established for all times, that the
difference between him who offers up, and that which is offered up,
should not go beyond the territory of animal sacrifice. But there is
the less ground for setting aside the reference to the priestly office
of the Messiah, that, even before Isaiah, David, in Ps. cx. 4,
designates Christ as the true High Priest on account of the atonement
to be made by Him; and, after Isaiah, Zechariah says in chap. vi. 13:
"And He sitteth and ruleth upon the throne, and He is a Priest upon His
throne."--It has now become current to derive [Hebrew: izh] from
[Hebrew: nzh] in the signification "to leap"--"He shall cause to leap.
This explanation made its appearance at first in a very cautious way."
_Martini_ says: "I myself feel how very far from a right and sure
interpretation that is, which I am now, but very timidly, to advance,
regarding the sense of the received reading [Hebrew: izh]." By and by,
however, expositors hardened themselves against the decisive objections
which stand in the way of it. These objections are the following. 1.
The Hebrew _usus loquendi_ is in [Hebrew: nzh] so sure, that we are not
entitled to take the explanation from the Arabic. The verb is, in
Hebrew, never used except of _fluids_. In _Kal_, it does not mean "to
leap," but "to spatter," Lev. vi. 20 (27): "And upon whose garment is
_spattered_ of the blood;" 2 Kings ix. 33; Is. lxiii. 5. In _Hiphil_,
it is set apart and used exclusively for the holy sprinklings; and the
more frequently it occurs in this signification, the less are we at
liberty to deviate from it. 2. "He shall make to leap" would be far too
indefinite,--a circumstance [Pg 273] which appears from the vague and
arbitrary conjectures of the supporters of this view. _Gesenius_, in
his Commentary, _Stier_, and others, think of a leaping for joy, in
support of which they have quoted the _Kamus_, according to which the
verb is used of wanton asses! According to _Gesenius_ in the
_Thesaurus_, _Hofmann_, and others, the Gentiles are to leap up, in
order to show their _reverence_ for the Servant of God. According to
_Hitzig_ and others, it is to leap for _astonishment_, while, according
to _Umbreit_ and others, it is for _joyful admiration_. One sees that
the mere "He shall make to leap" is in itself too meaningless; and
interpreters are obliged to make the best addition which they can.--3.
According to this explanation, no cause is assigned by which the homage
of the Gentiles is called forth; and that cause can the less be
omitted, that the horror of the Jews is traced back to its cause. The
parenthesis in ver. 14 lacks its antithesis; and that this antithesis
must lie in [Hebrew: izh], is rendered probable even by the
circumstance, that this word signifies, in a formal point of view,
something which the Servant of God does, and not something which the
Gentiles do, while we should, by the antithesis to [Hebrew: wmmv], be
led to expect just this.[3]--In the _protasis_, the discourse is only
of many; here, it is of many nations (_Gousset_: "It is emphatic, so
that it comprehends all, and denotes, at the same time, that they are
numerous"), and of kings. This is quite natural; for it was only
members of the covenant-people who felt shocked, while the reverence is
felt by the whole Gentile world.--The _shutting of the mouth_ occurs
elsewhere, too, repeatedly, as a sign of reverence and humble
submission. The reference of [Hebrew: eliv] to [Hebrew: eliK], shows
that _Ewald_ is wrong in explaining it by "besides Him." Since the
preceding [Hebrew: el] designated the object of the horror,--the
substratum of it--it must here, too, designate the substratum of the
shutting of the mouth, and "over Him," be equivalent to: "on account of
Him," "out of reverence for Him."--In the exposition of the last words,
the old translations differ. We may explain them either: "They to whom
it had not been [Pg 274] told, see;" thus the LXX.: [Greek: hois ouk
anêngelê peri autou, opsontai, kai hoi ouk akêkoasi, sunêsousi], whom
Paul follows in Rom. xv. 21. (In that context, however, the difference
of the two explanations is of no consequence; the passage would be
equally suitable, even according to the other interpretation.) Or, we
may explain them: "That which had not been told them, they see," &c.
Thus the other ancient translations explain. According to the first
view, the connection would be this: For, in order that ye may not
wonder at my speaking to you of nations and kings, they who, &c.
According to the second view, the ground of the reverence of the
heathen kings and their people is stated. That which formerly had not
been told to them, had not been heard by them, is the expiation by the
Servant of God. By Him they receive a blessing not formerly hoped for
or expected, and are thereby filled with silent reverence towards the
Author of the gift. We decide in favour of the former view, according
to which chap. lxvi. 19: "That have not heard my fame, neither have
seen my glory," is parallel. The contrast, in our verse, to those who
did not hear and who now perceive, is, in the subsequent verse, formed
by those who do hear, and do not believe. The words: "Who had not been
told, who did not hear," refer to the Messianic announcement which was
given to Israel only, and from which the Gentiles were excluded.[4]
Upon this sketch, there follows in chap. liii. 1-10, the enlargement.
First, in vers. 1-3 that is expounded which, in ver. 14 had been said
of the many being _shocked_, and of the _cause_. The commentary upon
[Hebrew: wmmv] "they were shocked," is given in ver. 1: a great portion
of the Jews do not believe in the salvation which had appeared. The
enlargement of: "so marred," &c., is given in vers. 2, 3. The cause of
the [Pg 275] unbelief is, that the glory of the Servant of God is
concealed behind humiliation, misery, and shame.
Chap. liii. 1: "_Who believes that which we hear, and the arm of the
Lord, to whom it is revealed?_"
The Prophet, whose spiritual eye is just falling upon the large, the
enormously large number of unbelievers, overlooks, at the moment, the
other aspect, and, in his grief, expresses that which took place in a
large _portion_ only, in such a manner as if it were general. Similar
representations we elsewhere frequently meet with, _e.g._, Ps. xiv. 3
(compare my Commentary); Jer. v. 1--[Hebrew: wmveh] is commonly
understood in the signification, "message" or "discourse." But in
favour of the explanation: "That which is heard by us," _q.d._, "that
which we hear," there is, in the first instance, the _usus loquendi_.
The word never occurs in any other than its original signification,
"that which is heard," and in the signification, "rumour," which is
closely connected with the former. In Isa. xxviii. 9, a passage which
is most confidently referred to in proof of the signification,
_institutio_, _doctrina_, [Hebrew: wmveh] is that which the Prophet
hears from God. The mockers who exclaim: "Whom will he make to
understand [Hebrew: wmveh]?" take, with a sneer, out of his mouth the
word upon which chap. xxi. 10: "That which I have heard of the Lord of
Hosts, I declare unto you," forms a commentary, [Greek: Akoê] too, by
which, in the New Testament, [Hebrew: wmveh] is rendered, has not at
all the signification, "discourse," "preaching." [Greek: Akoê] in Rom.
x. 16, 17, is not the preaching, but the hearing, as is shown by the
[Greek: mê ouk êkousan] in ver. 18. The [Greek: akoê], according to
ver. 17: [Greek: hê de akoê dia rhêmatos Theou], is the passive to the
active to the word of God. "Who believes our [Greek: akoê], our
hearing," _i.e._, that which we hear, which is made known to us by the
Word of God. In a passive sense, [Greek: akoê] stands likewise in the
passages Matt. iv. 24, xiv. 1, xxiv. 6, which _Stier_ cites in support
of the signification "discourse," "preaching;" it is that which has
been heard by some one, "rumour," "report." In Heb. iv. 2 (as also in 1
Thess. ii. 13) [Greek: logos akoês], is the word which they heard. That
passage: [Greek: ouk ôphelêsen ho logos tês akoês ekeinous, mê
sunkekramenos tê pistei tois akousasi], may simply be considered as a
paraphrase of our: Who believes that which we hear. A second argument
in favour of our explanation: "That which we hear" lies in the relation
[Pg 276] to the preceding, which, only when thus explained, arranges itself
suitably: "Those understand what they formerly did not hear; Israel, on
the contrary, does not believe that which they have heard." Of great
importance, _finally_, is the circumstance, that it is only with this
interpretation that the unity of the speaker in vers. 1-10 can be
maintained. In the sequel, the _we_ everywhere refers to the _believing
Church_. But, for this reason, it is difficult to think here of the
order of the teachers, which must be the case when we translate: "Who
believes our preaching." It has been objected that, even in this case,
no real change of subject takes place, but that, in both cases, the
Prophet is speaking, with this difference only, that, in ver. 1, he
numbers himself among the proclaimers of the message, while, in ver. 2
ff., he reckons himself among the believing Congregation. But we shall
be obliged not to bring in the Prophet at all. In ver. 2 ff., the
speaker is the believing Church of the _Future_, in the time after the
appearance of the Saviour, and just so, in ver. 1, the preaching, if it
should be spoken of at all, cannot belong to the Prophet and his
contemporaries, but to those only who came forward with the message of
the manifested Saviour; just as in John xii. 38; Rom. x. 16, our verse
is referred to the unbelief of the Jews in the manifested Saviour. The
cause of the unbelief over which ver. 1 laments is indeed, according to
vers. 2 and 3, the appearance of the Saviour in the form of a Servant,
and His bitter suffering. That, then, must first have taken place,
before the unbelief manifested itself.[5] _Stier_ rightly remarks:
"Between 'the arm of God,'and ourselves, a [Hebrew: wmveh] is placed
as the medium, and the point is to believe in it." It is the gospel,
the tidings of the manifested Saviour. By the side of the joy over the
many Gentiles who with delight hear and understand the message of the
Servant of God, there is the sorrow over the many in Israel who do not
believe this message.--The _arm of the Lord_ comes into consideration
as the seat of His divine power; comp. chap. xl. 10, li. 5-9, lii. 10.
[Pg 277] According to the context, the manifestation of this power in
Christ is here spoken of _Stier_ says: "In this Servant, the redeeming
arm manifests itself, personifies itself Christ himself is, as it were,
the outstretched arm of the Lord." In Rom. i. 16, the Gospel is
designated as [Greek: dunamis Theou eis sôtêrian panti tô pisteuonti.]
[Hebrew: glh] is elsewhere commonly construed with [Hebrew: al] or
[Hebrew: l], here with [Hebrew: el]. This indicates that the revealing
of the arm of the Lord is of a _supernatural_ kind, such an one as
conies down from above. The Lord has revealed His arm, His power and
glory, as He has manifested them in the mission of His servant, _in the
eyes of all_ (comp. chap. lii. 10: "The Lord hath made bare His holy
arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see
the salvation of our God"); but it is really seen by those only whose
eyes God opens. The deeds of God, even the most manifest, always retain
the nature of a mystery which remains concealed to the worldly
disposition. God can be recognised only by God. Of the ungodly it holds
true: "With seeing eyes they do not see, and with hearing ears they do
not hear." What was the _cause_ of this unbelief in the Son of God, we
are told in the sequel. It is the appearance of the Divine in the form
of a servant, which the gross carnal disposition cannot understand, and
by which it is offended. This offence which, according to the sequel,
even the God-fearing had to overcome, is, for the ungodly, a lasting
one.
Ver. 2. "_And He grew up as the sprout before Him, and as the root from
a dry ground. He had no form nor comeliness: and we see Him, but there
is no appearance that we should desire Him._"
The relation of this verse to the preceding one was correctly seen by
_Michaelis_: "The cause of the offence is this, that He does not rise
or stand out like the cedar, but He grows up gradually," &c. The
subject, the Servant of God, is easily inferred from [Hebrew: eliv] in
ver. 15. This is the more admissible that ver. 1, too, indirectly
refers to Him. He is the subject of the report in whose appearance the
arm of the Lord has been revealed. The _sprout_, the twig, designates,
even in itself, the poor condition; and, notwithstanding _Stier's_
counter-remarks, it is the pointing to such a poor condition alone
which suits the connection, and there is no reason why we should here
already [Pg 278] supply "from a dry ground." A member of the royal
house before its fall resembled, at his very origin, a proud tree, or,
at least, a proud branch of such a tree. The sprout, here, supposes the
stump, [Hebrew: gze]. in chap. xi. 8. [Hebrew: ivnq] elsewhere always
signifies "suckling;" comp. here chap. xi. 8. Of the sprout, elsewhere,
the feminine [Hebrew: ivnqt] is used. According to _Stier_, this
deviation from the common use is here not a matter of accident.
Supposing a double sense, he finds it an indication of the helpless
infancy of the Redeemer, and in this a representation of His lowliness.
The LXX.: [Greek: hôs paidion]. The suffix in [Hebrew: lpniv] "before
Him" refers to the immediately preceding [Hebrew: ihvh], not to the
people. _Before Him_, the Lord--known to Him, watched by Him, standing
under His protection, comp. Gen. xvii. 18; Job viii. 16. The lowliness
here, and the contempt of men in ver. 3, form the contrast; He is low,
but He will not remain so; for the eye of the Most High is directed
towards Him. Before the eyes of men who are not able to penetrate to
the substance through the appearance, He is concealed; but God beholds
Him, beholds His concealed glory, beholds His high destination; and
because He beholds, He also takes care, and prepares His transition
from lowliness to glory. But the "before Him" does not by any means
here form the main thought; it only gives a gentle and incidental
hint.--The _root_ denotes here, as in chap. xi. 1, 10, the product of
the root, that whereby it becomes visible, the sprout from the root. In
reference to this parallel passage, _Stier_ strikingly remarks: "It is,
by our modern interpreters, put aside as quietly as possible; for, with
a powerful voice, it proclaims to us two truths: that the same Isaiah
refers to his former prophecy,--and that this Servant of the Lord here
is none other than the Messiah there." A twig which grows up from a dry
place is insignificant and poor. Just as the Messiah is here, in
respect to His state of humiliation, and specially in reference to His
origin from the house of David, sunk into complete obscurity, compared
to a weak, insignificant twig, so He is, in Ezek. xvii. 23, in
reference to His state of glorification, compared to a lofty, splendid
cedar tree, under which all the fowls of heaven dwell. The Jews, in
opposition even to ver. 22 of Ezekiel, expected that He should appear
so from the very beginning; and since He did not appear so, they [Pg
279] despised Him. The [Hebrew: vnrahv] is, by most of the modern
interpreters, in opposition to the accents, connected with the first
member: "He had no form nor comeliness that _we should have seen Him_."
But from internal reasons, this explanation must be rejected. "To see,"
in the sense of "to perceive," would not be suitable. For, how could
they have such views of the condition of the Servant of God, if they
overlooked Him? But it is not possible to adduce any real demonstrative
parallel passage in support of [Hebrew: rah] with the Accusat., without
[Hebrew: b], ever having the signification, "to look at," "to consider
with delight." The circumstance that the Future is used in the sense of
the Present: "and we see Him," is explained from the Prophet's viewing
it as present.--The statement that the Servant of God had no form, nor
comeliness, nor appearance, must not be referred to His lowliness
before His sufferings only; we must, on the contrary, perceive, in His
sufferings and death, the completion of this condition; in the _Ecce
Homo_, the full historical realization of it. _Calvin_ rightly points
out that that which here, in the first instance, is said of the Head,
is repeated upon the Church; He says: "This must not be understood of
Christ's person only, who was despised by the world, and was at last
given up to an ignominious death, but of His whole Kingdom which, in
the eyes of men, had no form, nor comeliness, nor splendour."
Ver. 3. "_Despised and most unworthy among men, a man of pains and an
acquaintance of disease, and like one hiding His face from us,
despised, and we esteemed Him not._"
In the preceding verse, we are told what the Servant of God had _not_,
viz., anything which could have attracted the natural man who had no
conception of the inward glory, and as little of the cause why the
Divine appears in the form of a Servant and a sufferer. Here we are
told what He had, viz.: everything to _offend_ and _repulse_ him to
whom the arm of the Lord had not been revealed,--the full measure of
misery and the cross. Instead of "the most unworthy among men," the
text literally translated has: "one ceasing from among men" ( [Hebrew:
Hdl] in the signification "ceasing" in Ps. xxxix. 5), _i.e._, one who
ceases to belong to men, to be a man, exactly corresponding to "from
man," and "from the sons of men," in the sketch, ver. 14, and to: "I am
a worm and no man," in Ps. xxii. [Pg 280] The explanation: "Forsaken by
men, rejected of men," is opposed by the _usus loquendi_, and by these
parallel passages.--"A man of pains"--one who, as it were, possesses
pains as his property. There is a similar expression in Prov. xxix. 1:
"A man of chastenings"--one who is often chastened. "An acquaintance of
disease,"--one who is intimately acquainted with it, who has, as it
were, entered into a covenant of friendship with it. The passive
Participle has no other signification than this, Deut. i. 13, 15, and
does not occur in the signification of the active Participle
"knowing."--There is no reason for supposing that disease stands here
_figuratively_. It comprehends also the pain arising from wounds, 1
Kings xxii. 34; Jer. vi. 7, x. 19; and there is so much the greater
reason for thinking of it here, that [Hebrew: hHli] in ver. 10,
evidently refers to the [Hebrew: Hli] in this place. As an acquaintance
of disease, the Lord especially showed himself in His _passion_. And
then _every sorrow_ may be viewed as a disease; every sorrow has, to a
certain degree, disease in its train. On Ps. vi., where sickness is
represented as the consequence of hostile persecution, Luther remarks:
"Where the heart is afflicted, the whole body is weary and bruised;
while, on the other hand, where there is a joyful heart, the body is
also so much the more active and strong." [Hebrew: hstir] always means
"to hide;" the whole phrase occurs in chap. l. 6, in the signification
"to hide the face." [Hebrew: mstr] is the Participle in _Hiphil_. In
the singular, it is true, such a form is not found any where else; but,
in the Plural, it is, Jer. xxix. 8. In favour of the interpretation:
"Like one hiding His face from us," is the evident reference to the law
in Lev. xiii. 45: "The leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall
be rent and his head bare, _and the beard he shall have covered over_,
and shall cry: Unclean, unclean,"--where that which the leper crieth
forms the commentary upon the symbolical act of the covering. They
covered themselves, as a sign of shame, as far as possible, in order to
allow of breathing, up to the nose; hence the mention of the beard. In
my Commentary on the Song of Solomon i. 7, it was proved that covering
has every where the meaning of being put to shame--of being in a
shameful condition. The leper was by the law condemned to be a living
representation of _sin_. No horror was like that which was felt in his
presence. _Hence_ [Pg 281] _it is the highest degree of humiliation and
abasement which is expressed by the comparison with the leper, who must
hide his face, whom God has marked._ It is the more natural to suppose
this reference to the leper, that probably, the [Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM]
likewise pointed to the leper. The leper was "one ceasing from men." In
2 Kings xv. 5; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21, a house in which lepers dwell is
called a "house of liberty," _i.e._, of separation from all human
society; compare the expression "free among the dead," in Ps. lxxxviii.
6. Lepers were considered as dead persons. Uzziah, while in his
leprosy, was, according to the passage in Chronicles already cited, cut
off from the house of the Lord, and forfeited his place there, where
all the servants of the Lord dwell with Him. To leprosy, the term
[Hebrew: ngve] in ver. 4 likewise points. _Beck's_ objection: "The
point in question here is not that which the unfortunate man does but
that which others do in reference to him," is based upon a
misconception. Neither the one nor the other is spoken of The
comparative [Hebrew: k] must not be overlooked. The comparison with the
leper, the culminating point of all contempt, is highly suitable to the
parallelism with [Hebrew: nbzh]. Ordinarily [Hebrew: mstr] is now
understood as a _substantivum verbale_: "He was like hiding of the face
before Him," _i.e._, like a thing or person before which or whom we
hide our face, because we cannot bear its horrible and disgusting
appearance. But with one before whom we hide our face, the Servant of
God could not be compared; the comparison would, in that case, be
weak.--[Hebrew: nbzh] is not the 1st pers. Fut. but Partic. Niph.,
"despised."--The close of the verse returns to its beginning, after
having been, in the middle, established and made good.
The second subdivision from ver. 4 to ver. 7 furnishes us with the key
to the sufferings of the Servant of God described in what precedes, by
pointing to their _vicarious character_, to which (ver. 7) the conduct
of the Servant of God under His sufferings corresponds.
Ver. 4. "_But our diseases He bore, and our pains He took upon Him: and
we esteemed Him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted._"
The words [Hebrew: Hli] and [Hebrew: mkab] of the preceding verse here
appear again. He was laden with disease and pains; but these
sufferings, the wages of sin, were not inflicted upon Him on account
[Pg 282] of His own sins, but on account of our sins, so that the
horror falls back upon ourselves, and is changed into loving admiration
of Him. _Beck_ remarks: "Properly speaking, they had not become sick or
unfortunate at all; this had _a priori_ been rendered impossible by the
vicarious suffering of the Son of God; but since they deserved the
sickness and calamity, the averting of it might be considered as a
healing." But this view is altogether the result of embarrassment.
Disease is the inseparable companion of sin. If the persons speaking
are subject to the latter, the disease cannot be considered as an evil
merely threatening them. If they speak of their diseases, we think, in
the first instance, of sickness by which they have already been seized;
and the less obvious sense ought to have been expressly indicated. In
the same manner, the healing also suggests hurts already existing. But
quite decisive is ver. 6, where the miserable condition clearly appears
to have already taken place.--According to the opinion of several
interpreters, by diseases, all inward and outward sufferings are
figuratively designated; according to the opinion of others,
_spiritual_ diseases, sins. But even from the relation of this verse to
the preceding, it appears that here, in the first instance, diseases
and pains, in the ordinary sense, are spoken of; just as the blind and
deaf in chap. xxxv. are, in the first instance, they who are naturally
blind and deaf.--Disease and pain here cannot be spoken of in a sense
different from that in which it is spoken of there. Diseases, in the
sense of _sins_, do not occur at all in the Old Testament. The
circumstance that in the parallel passage, vers. 11 and 12, the bearing
of the _transgressions_ and _sins_ is spoken of, does not prove
anything. The Servant of God bears them also in their consequences, in
their punishments, among which sickness and pains occupy a prominent
place. Of the bearing of outward sufferings, [Hebrew: nwa Hli] occurs
in Jer. x. 19 also. If the words are rightly understood, then at once,
light falls upon the apostolic quotation in Matt. viii. 16, 17: [Greek:
pantas tous kakôs echontas etherapeusen, hopôs plêrôthê to rhêthen dia
Êsaiou tou prophêtou legontos. autos tas astheneias hêmôn elabe kai tas
nosous ebastase]; and this deserves a consideration so much the more
careful, that the Evangelist here intentionally deviates from the
Alexandrine version ( [Greek: houtos tas hamartias hêmôn pherei kai
peri hêmôn odunatai]). In doing so, "we [Pg 283] do not give an
external meaning to that which is to be understood spiritually;" but
when the Saviour healed the sick, He fulfilled the prophecy before us
in its most proper and obvious sense. And this fulfilment is even now
going on. For him who stands in a living faith in Christ, sickness,
pain, and, in general all sorrow, have lost their sting. But it has not
yet appeared what we shall be, and we have still to expect the complete
fulfilment. In the Kingdom of glory, sickness and pain shall have
altogether disappeared.--Some interpreters would translate [Hebrew:
nwa] by "to take away;" but even the parallel [Hebrew: sbl] is
conclusive against such a view; and, farther, the ordinary use of
[Hebrew: nwa] of the bearing of the punishment of sin, _e.g._, Ezek.
xviii. 19; Num. xiv. 33; Lev. v. 1, xx. 17. But of conclusive weight is
the connection with the preceding verse, where the Servant of God
appears as the intimate acquaintance of sickness, as the man of pains.
He has, accordingly, not only _put away_ our sicknesses and pains, but
He has, as our substitute, _taken them upon Him_; He has healed us by
His having himself become sick in our stead. This could be done only by
His having, in the first instance, as a substitute, appropriated our
_sins_, of which the sufferings are the consequence; compare 1 Peter
ii. 24: [Greek: hos tas hamartias hêmôn autos anênenken en tô sômati
autou epi to xulon.]--_Plagued_, _smitten of God_, _afflicted_, are
expressions which were commonly used in reference to the visitation of
sinful men. It is especially in the word _plagued_, which is
intentionally placed first, that the reference to a self-deserved
suffering is strongly expressed, compare Ps. lxxiii. 14: "For all the
day long am I _plagued_, and my chastisement is new every morning." Of
Uzziah, visited on account of his sin, it is said in 2 Kings xv. 5:
"And the Lord inflicted a _plague_ upon the king, and he was a leper
unto the day of his death." [Hebrew: nge] "plague" is in Lev. xiii., as
it were, _nomen proprium_ for the leprosy, which in the law is so
distinctly designated as a punishment of sin.--[Hebrew: hkh] too, is
frequently used of the infliction of divine punishments and judgments.
Num. xiv. 12; Deut. xxviii. 22. The people did not err in considering
the suffering as a punishment of sin, but only in considering it as a
punishment for the sins committed by the Servant of God himself.
According to the view of both the Old and New Testament, every
suffering is [Pg 284] punishment. The suffering of a perfect saint,
however, involves a contradiction, unless it be vicarious. By his
completely stepping out of the territory of sin, he must also step out
of the territory of evil, which, according to the doctrine established
at the very threshold of revelation, is the wages of sin, for otherwise
God would not be holy and just. Hence, as regards the Servant of God,
we have only the alternatives: either His sinlessness must be doubted,
or the vicarious nature of His sufferings must be acknowledged. The
persons speaking took up, at first, the former position; after their
eyes had been opened, they chose the latter.
Ver. 5, "_And He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His
wounds we are healed._"
[Hebrew: hva] "He" stands in front, in order emphatically to point out
Him who suffered as a substitute, in contrast to those who had really
deserved the punishment: "He, on account of our transgressions." There
is no reason for deviating:, in the case of [Hebrew: Hll], from the
original signification "to pierce," and adopting the general
signification "to wound;" the LXX. [Greek: etraumatisthê]. _The
chastisement of our peace_ is the chastisement whereby peace is
acquired for us. Peace stands as an individualizing designation of
salvation; in the world of contentions, peace is one of the highest
blessings. Natural man is on all sides surrounded by enemies; [Greek:
dikaiôthentes ek pisteôs eirênên echomen pros ton Theo dia tou kuriou
hêmôn Iêsou Christou], Rom. v. 1, and peace with God renders all other
enemies innocuous, and at last removes them altogether. The peace is
inseparable from the substitution. If the Servant of God has borne our
sins, He has thereby, at the same time, acquired peace; for, just as He
enters into our guilt, so we now enter into His reward. The justice of
God has been satisfied through Him; and thus an open way has been
prepared for His bestowing peace and salvation. The _chastisement_ can,
according to the context, be only an actual one, only such as consists
in the infliction of some _evil_. It is in misconception and narrowness
of view that the explanation of the followers of _Menke_ originated:
"The instruction for our peace is with Him." This explanation militates
against the whole context, in which not the _doctrine_ but the
_suffering_ of the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelism
[Pg 285] with: "By His wounds we are healed;" against the [Hebrew:
eliv], "upon Him," which, according to a comparison with: "He bore our
disease, and took upon Him our pains," must indicate that the
punishment lay upon the sufferer like a pressing _burden_. It is only
from aversion to the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ,
that we can account for the fact, that that doctrine could be so
generally received by that theological school. More candid are the
rationalistic interpreters. Thus _Hitzig_ remarks: "_The chastisement
of our peace_ is not a chastisement which would have been salutary for
our morality, nor such as might serve for our salvation, but according
to the parallelism, such as has served for our salvation, and has
allowed us to come off safe and unhurt." _Stier_, too, endeavours to
explain the "chastisement of our peace," in an artificial way.
According to him, there is always implied in [Hebrew: mvsr] the
tendency towards setting right and healing the chastised one himself;
but wherever this word occurs, a retributive pain and destruction are
never spoken of But, in opposition to this view, there is the fact that
[Hebrew: mvsr] does not by any means rarely occur as signifying the
punishments which are inflicted upon stiff-necked obduracy, and which
bear a destructive character, and which, therefore, cannot be derived
from the principle of correction, but from that of retribution only.
Thus, _e.g._, in Prov. xv. 10: "Bad _chastisement_ shall be to those
that forsake the way, and he that hateth chastisement shall die," on
which _Michaelis_ remarks: "_In antanaclasi ad correptionem amicam et
paternum, mortem et mala quaelibet inferens, in ira_," Ps. vi. 2. Of
destructive punishment, too, the verb is used in Jer. ii. 19. But one
does not at all see how the idea of "setting right" should be suitable
here; for surely, as regards the Servant of God himself, the absolutely
Righteous, the suffering here has the character of chastisement. It is
not the mere suffering, but the chastisement, which is upon Him; but
that necessarily requires that the punishment should proceed from the
principle of _retribution_, and that the Servant of God stands forth as
our Substitute.--[Hebrew: nrpa], Preter. Niph., hence "healing has been
bestowed upon us;"--[Hebrew: rpa] with [Hebrew: l], in the
signification "to bring healing," occurs also in chap. vi. 10, but
nowhere else. The healing is an individualising designation of
deliverance from the punishments of sin, called forth by the [Pg 286]
circumstance that disease occupied so prominent a place among them, and
had therefore been so prominently brought forward in what precedes. In
harmony with the Apostolic quotation, the expression clearly shows that
the punitive sufferings were already lying upon the persons speaking;
that by the Substitute they were not by any means delivered from the
future evils, but that the punishment, the inseparable companion of
sin, already existed, and was taken away by Him.
Ver. 6. "_All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one
to his own way, and the Lord hath made the iniquities of us all to fall
upon Him._"
_Calvin_ remarks: "In order the more strongly to impress upon the
hearts of men the benefits of Christ's death, the Prophet shews how
necessary is that healing which was mentioned before. There is herd an
elegant antithesis; for, in ourselves we are scattered, but, in Christ
collected; by nature we go astray and are carried headlong to
destruction,--in Christ we find the way in which we are led to the gate
of salvation; our iniquities cover and oppress us,--but they are
transferred to Christ by whom we are unburdened."--_All we_--in the
first instance, members of the covenant-people,--not, however, as
contrasted with the rest of mankind, but as partaking in the general
human destiny.--_We have turned every one to his own way_; we walked
through life solitary, forsaken, miserable, separated from God and the
good Shepherd, and deprived of His pastoral care. According to
_Hofmann_, the going astray designates the _liability_ to punishment,
but not the misery of the speakers; and the words also: "We have
turned," &c., mean, according to him, that they chose their own ways,
but not that they walked sorrowful or miserable. But the ordinary use
of the image militates against that view. In Ps. cxix. 176: "I go
astray like a lost sheep, seek thy servant," the going astray is a
figurative designation of being destitute of salvation. The misery of
the condition is indicated by the image of the scattered flock, also in
1 Kings xxii. 17: "I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills as sheep
that have not a shepherd." _Michaelis_ pertinently remarks: "Nothing is
so miserable as sheep without a shepherd,--a thing which Scripture so
often repeats, Num. xxvii. 17," &c. As a commentary upon our passage,
Ezek. xxxiv. 4-6 may serve; [Pg 287] and according to that passage we
shall be compelled to think of their being destitute of the care of a
shepherd: "And they are scattered, because there is no Shepherd; and
they become meat to all the beasts of the field. My sheep wander on all
the mountains, and on every high hill, and over the whole land my sheep
are scattered, and there is none that careth for them, or seeketh
them." The point of comparison is very distinctly stated in Matt. ix.
36 also: [Greek: idôn de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri autôn, hoti
êsan eskulmenoi kai erhrimenoi hôsei probata mê echonta poimena.]
Without doubt, turning to one's own ways is sinful, comp. chap. lvi.
11; but here it is not so much the aspect of sin, as that of misery,
which is noticed. As the chief reason of the sheep's wandering and
going astray, the bad condition of the shepherd must be considered,
comp. Jer. l. 6: "Perishing sheep were my people; their shepherds led
them astray," John x. 8: [Greek: pantes hosoi pro emou êlthon, kleptai
eisi kai lêstai.]--[Hebrew: pge] with [Hebrew: b] signifies "to hit;"
hence _Hiphil_, "to cause to hit." The iniquities of the whole
community _hit_ the Servant of God in their punishments; but according
to the biblical view, their punishments can come upon Him only as such,
only by His coming forward as a substitute for sinners, and not because
He suffers for the guilt of others to which He remained a stranger. By
this throwing the guilt upon the Servant of God, the condition of being
without a shepherd is _done_ away with, the flock is gathered from its
scattered condition. The wall of separation which was raised by its
guilt, and which separated it from God, the fountain of salvation, is
now removed by His substitution, and the words: "The Lord is my
Shepherd," now become a truth, comp. John x. 4.
Ver. 7. "_He was oppressed, and when He was plagued, He does not open
His mouth, like a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a
sheep which is dumb before her shearers, and He does not open his
mouth._"
In these words, we have a description of the manner in which the
Servant of God _bore_ such sufferings. It flows necessarily from the
circumstance, that it was a vicarious suffering. The substitution
implies that He took them upon Him spontaneously; and this has patience
for its companion. First, the contents of ver. 6 are once more summed
up in the word [Hebrew: ngw], "He was oppressed:" then, this condition
of the Servant [Pg 288] of God is brought into connection with His
_conduct_, which, only in this connection, appears in its full
majesty.--[Hebrew: ngw] is the Preterite in _Niphal_, and not, as
_Beck_ thinks, 1st pers. Fut. _Kal_. For the Future would be here
unusual; the verb has elsewhere the Future in _o_; the suffix is
wanting, and the sense which then arises suits only the untenable
supposition that, in vers. 1-10, the _Gentiles_ are speaking. The
_Niphal_ occurs in 1 Sam. xiii. 6, of Israel oppressed by the
Philistines; and in 1 Sam. xiv. 24, of those borne down by heavy toil
and fatigue. [Hebrew: ngw] and [Hebrew: nenh] "to be humbled,
oppressed, abused," do not, in themselves essentially differ; it is
only on account of the context, and the contrast implied in it, that
the same condition is once more designated by a word which is nearly
synonymous. The words "and He" separate [Hebrew: nenh] from what
precedes, and connect it with what follows. The explanation: "He was
oppressed, but He suffered patiently," has this opposed to it, that the
two _Niphals_, following immediately upon one another, cannot here
stand in a different meaning. The idea of patience would here not be a
collateral, but the main idea, and hence, could not stand without a
stronger designation.--In [Hebrew: iptH], the real Future has taken the
place of the ideal Past; it shows that the preceding Preterites are to
be considered as prophetical, and that, in point of fact, the suffering
of the Servant of God is no less future than His glorification. The
_lamb_ points back to Exod. xii. 3, and designates Christ as the true
paschal lamb. With a reference to the verse under consideration, John
the Baptist calls Christ the Lamb of God, John i. 29; comp. 1 Pet. i.
18, 19; Acts viii. 32-35. But since it is not the vicarious character
of Christ's sufferings which here, in the first instance, comes into
consideration, but His patience under them, the lamb is associated with
the female sheep, and that not in relation to her slayers, but to her
shearers. The last words: "And He does not open His mouth," are not to
be referred to the lamb, as some think, (even the circumstance that the
preceding [Hebrew: rHl] is a feminine noun militates against this
view), but, like the first: "He does not open His mouth," to the
Servant of God. It is an expressive repetition, and one which is
intended to direct attention to this feature; comp. the close of ver.
3; Gen. xlix. 4: Judges v. 16. The fulfilment is shown by 1 Pet. ii.
23: [Pg 289] [Greek: hos loidoroumenos ouk anteloidorei, paschôn ouk
êpeilei, paredidou de tô krinonti dikaiôs]; and likewise Matt. xxvii.
12-14: [Greek: kai en tô katêgoreisthai auton hupo tôn archiereôn kai
tôn presbuterôn ouen apekrinato. Tote legei autô ho Pilatos. ouk
akoueis posasou katamarturousi; kai ouk apekrithê autô pros ouden hen
rhêma, hôste thaumazein ton hêgemona lian.] Comp. xxvi. 62; Mark xv. 5;
Luke xxiii. 9; John xix. 9.
The third subdivision of the principal portion, vers. 8-10, describes
_the reward of the Servant of God_, by expanding the words: "Kings
shall shut their mouths on account of Him," in chap. lii. 15, and "He
shall be exalted," in ver. 13.
Ver. 8. "_From oppression and from judgment He was taken, and His
generation who can think it out; for He was cut of out of the land of
the living for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._"
God--such is the sense--takes Him to himself from heavy oppression, and
He who apparently was destroyed without leaving a trace, receives an
infinitely numerous generation (compare John xii. 32: [Greek: kagô
hean hupsôthô ek tês gês pantas helkusô pros emauton]), as a deserved
reward for having, by His violent death, atoned for the sins of His
people, delivered them from destruction, and acquired them for His
property.--[Hebrew: ecr] "oppression," as Ps. cvii. 39, properly,
according to the signification of the verb: "Shutting up,"
"restraining," "hindering." From what goes before, where the evils from
which the Servant of God is here delivered are described more in
detail, it appears that here we have not to think of a prison properly
so called; for there, it is not a prison, but abuse and oppression
which are spoken of.--[Hebrew: mwpT] is commonly referred to the
judgment which the enemies of the Servant of God passed upon Him, The
premised [Hebrew: ecr] then furnishes the distinct qualification of the
judgment, shows that that which, in a formal point of view, presents
itself as a judicial proceeding, is, in point of fact, heavy
oppression. But, at the same time, [Hebrew: mwpT] serves as a
limitation for [Hebrew: ecr]. We learn from it that the hatred of the
enemies moved within the limits of judicial proceedings,--just as it
happened in the history of Christ. But behind the human judgment, the
_divine_ is concealed, Jer. i. 16; Ezek. v. 8; Ps. cxliii. 2. This is
shown by what precedes, where the suffering of the Servant of God is so
emphatically and repeatedly designated as the punishment of sin
inflicted upon [Pg 290] Him by God.--[Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN]
"to be taken away from;" according to _Stier_: "taken away from
suffering, being delivered from it by God's having taken Him to
himself, to the land of eternal bliss." This view, according to which
the words refer to the glorification of the Servant of God, has been
adopted by the Church. It is adopted by the Vulgate: "_De angustia
et judicio sublatus est_;" by _Jerome_, who says on this passage:
"From tribulation and judgment He ascended, as a conqueror, to the
Father;" and by _Michaelis_ who thus interprets it: "He was taken
away, and received at the right hand of the Majesty." By several
interpretations, the words are still referred to the state of
humiliation of the Servant of God: "_Through_ oppression and judgment
He was _dragged to execution_." But the Prophet has already, in ver. 3,
finished the description of the mere sufferings of the Servant of
God--vers. 4-7 exhibit the cause of His sufferings and His conduct
under them; [Hebrew: lqH] cannot, by itself, signify "to be dragged to
execution"--in that case, as in Prov. xxiv. 11, "to death" would have
been added; [Hebrew: mN] must be taken in the signification, "from,"
"out of," as in the subsequent [Hebrew: marC], compare 2 Kings iii. 9,
where [Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN] signifies "to take from." In the
passage under consideration, as well as in those two passages which
refer to the ascension of Elijah, there is a distinct allusion to Gen.
v. 24, where it is said of Enoch: "And he was no more, for God had
_taken_ him."--_And His generation who can think it out?_ [Hebrew:
dvr], properly "circle," is not only the communion of those who are
connected by co-existence, but also of those who are connected by
disposition, be it good or bad.[6] Thus, the generation of the children
of God in Ps. lxxiii. 15; the generation of the righteous, Ps. xiv. 5;
the generation of the upright, in Ps. cxii. 2. Here, the generation of
the Servant of God is the communion of those who are animated by His
Spirit, filled with His life. This company will, after His death,
increase to an infinite greatness. [Hebrew: wvH] and [Hebrew: wiH] "to
meditate," is commonly connected with [Hebrew: b] of the object, but
occurs also with [Pg 291] the simple Accusative, in the signification
"to meditate upon something," in Ps. cxlv. 5. There is, as it appears,
an allusion to the promise to Abraham, Gen. xiii. 16: "And I make thy
seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of
the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered,"--a promise which
received its complete fulfilment just by the Servant of God. The
explanation which we have given was adopted by the LXX.: [Greek: tên
genean autou tis diêgêsetai.] Next to it, comes the explanation: "Who
can think out His _posterity_;" but against this, it is conclusive that
[Hebrew: dvr] never occurs in the signification "posterity." The
parallel passage in ver. 10: "He shall see seed," or "posterity," holds
good even for our view; for since the posterity is a _spiritual_ one,
it is substantially identical with _generation_ here. But it may, _a
priori_, be expected that the same thing shall be designated from
various aspects. If "generation" be taken in the signification
"posterity," then the words: "He shall see seed" would be a mere
repetition. The appropriateness of the sense which, according to our
explanation, comes out, will become especially evident, if we consider
that, in vers. 8-10, we have the carrying out of that which, in the
sketch, was said of the respectful homage of the many nations and
kings. A whole host of explanations assigns to [Hebrew: dvr]
significations which cannot be vindicated. Thus, the translation of
_Luther_: "Who shall disclose the length of His life?" that of
_Hitzig_: His destiny; that of _Beck_: His importance and influence in
the history of the world; that of _Knobel_: His dwelling place, _i.e._,
His grave, who considered? The signification, "dwelling place," does
not at all belong to [Hebrew: dvr]. In Isaiah xxxviii. 12, [Hebrew:
dvr] are the cotemporaries from whom the dying man is taken away, and
who are withdrawn from him: "My _generation_ is taken away, and removed
from me like a shepherd's tent"--dying Hezekiah there laments.
Inadmissible, likewise, is the explanation: "Who of His cotemporaries
will consider, or considered, it" for [Hebrew: at], the sign of the
Accusative, cannot stand before the _Nomin. Absol._ In Nehem. ix. 34,
this use is by no means certain, and, at all events, we cannot draw any
inference from the language of Nehemiah as to that of Isaiah. The
Ellipses: "the true cause of His death," "the importance and fruit of
His death," "the salvation lying behind it" (_Stier_), are very [Pg
292] hard, and the sense which is purchased by such sacrifices is
rather a common-place one, little suitable to this context, and to the
relation to chap. lii. 15.--"_For He was cut off from the land of the
living, for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._" The
reason is here stated why the Servant of God receives so glorious a
reward; why, after He has been removed to God, a generation so
infinitely great is granted to Him. _He has deserved this reward by His
having suffered for the sins of His people, as their substitute._ The
first clause must not be separated from the second: "for the
transgression," &c. For it is not the circumstance, that the Servant of
God suffered a violent death at all, but that for the sin of His people
He took it upon Him, which is the ground of His glorification. [Hebrew:
ngzr] "to be cut off" never occurs of a quiet, natural death; not even
in the passage, quoted in support of this use of the word, viz., Psa.
lxxxviii. 6; Lam. iii. 54, but always of a violent, premature death.
The cognate [Hebrew: ngrz] also has, in Psa. xxxi. 23, the
signification of extermination. [Hebrew: lmv], poetical form for
[Hebrew: lhM], refers to the collective [Hebrew: eM]. Before it, the
relative pronoun is to be understood: for the sin of my people, whose
the punishment, _q.d._, whose property the punishment was, to whom it
belonged. _Stier_ prefers to adopt the most violent interpretation
rather than to conform and yield to this so simple sense, which, as he
says, could be entertained only by that obsolete theory of substitution
where one saves the other from suffering. Several interpreters take the
suffix in [Hebrew: lmv] as a Singular: "on account of the transgression
of my people, punishment was to Him." And passages, indeed, are not
wanting where the supposition that [Hebrew: mv] designates the
Singular, has some appearance of probability; but, upon a closer
examination, this appearance everywhere vanishes.[7] Moreover, as we
have already remarked, it is, on account of the sense, inadmissible to
separate the two clauses.--By [Hebrew: emi] "my people," the hypothesis
of the non-Messianic interpreters is set aside, that in [Pg 293] vers.
1-10 the _Gentiles_ are speaking. It is a single people to which the
speakers belong, the covenant-people, for whose benefit the atonement
and substitution of the Servant of God were, _in the first instance_,
intended (comp. [Greek: sôsei ton laon hautou apo tôn hamartiôn autôn],
Matth. i. 21) yea, were, to a certain degree, exclusively intended,
inasmuch as the believing Gentiles were received into it as adopted
children. It is a forced expedient to say: every single individual of
the Gentiles, or of their princes, says that the Servant of God has
suffered for the sin of His people, hence also for His own. And just as
inadmissible is the supposition that a representative of the heathen
world is speaking; the whole heathen world cannot be designated as a
people.
Ver. 9. "_And they gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich
in His death, because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit
in His mouth._"
[Hebrew: vitN] is intentionally without a definite Subject, _q.d._: it
was given to Him, _Ewald_ § 273a. The acting subject could not be at
all more distinctly marked out, because there was a _double_ subject.
Men fixed for Him the ignominious grave with criminals; by the
providence of God, He received the honourable grave with a rich, and
that for the sake of His innocent sufferings, as a prelude to the
greater glorification which, as a reward, was to be bestowed upon Him,
as an example of what is said in ver. 12: "He shall divide spoil with
the strong." The _wicked_ who are buried apart from others, can be the
real criminals only, the transgressors in ver. 12. Criminals received,
among the Jews, an ignominious burial. Thus _Josephus_, Arch. iv. 8, §
6, says: "He who has blasphemed God shall, after having been stoned, be
hung up for a day, and be buried quietly and without honour."
_Maimonides_ (see _Iken_ on this passage in the Biblia Hagana ii. 2)
says: "Those who have been executed by the court of justice are not by
any means buried in the graves of their ancestors; but there are two
graves appointed for them by the court of justice,--one for the stoned
and burnt; the other for the decapitated and strangled." Just as the
Prophet had, in the preceding verse, said that the Servant of God would
die a violent death like a criminal, so he says here, that they had
also fixed for Him a grave in common with executed criminals. _And with
a rich_ [Pg 294] (they gave Him His grave) _in His death_: they gave
Him His grave, first with the wicked; but, indeed, He received it with
a rich, since God's providence was watching over the dead body of His
Servant. [Hebrew: vitN], in so far as it refers to the first clause,
receives its limitation by the second. Before their fulfilment, the
words had the character of a holy riddle; but the fulfilment has solved
this riddle. The designation of Joseph of Arimathea as [Greek:
anthrôpos plousios] in Matt. xxvi. 57, is equivalent to an express
quotation. Although it was by a special divine providence that the
Singular was chosen, yet we may suppose that, in the first instance,
the rich man here is contrasted with the wicked men, and is an ideal
person, the personified idea of the species. _In His death_ is, in
point of fact, equivalent to: "after He had died;" but,
notwithstanding, there is no necessity for giving to the [Hebrew: b]
the signification "after." Death rather denotes the _condition of
death_; _in death_ is contrasted with: _in life_. Altogether in the
same manner we find in Lev. xi. 31: "Whosoever doth touch them in their
death," for, "after they have died." _Farther_--1 Kings xiii. 31: "In
my death you shall bury me in the sepulchre." The Plural [Hebrew:
mvtiM] "the deaths," "conditions of death," cannot be adduced as a
proof that the subject of the prophecy must be a collective person;
for, in that case, rather the Plural of the suffix would be required
(Ps. lxxviii. 64 is a rare exception); and in Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10,
death is likewise spoken of in the Plural. The Plural is formed after
the analogy of [Hebrew: HiiM], for which reason it commends itself to
explain [Hebrew: arC HiiM] in the preceding verse, "land of life,"
instead of "land of the living." But the Plural can here the less
occasion any difficulty, that it is not dying which is spoken of, but
the continuing condition of death.--_Because He had done no violence_,
&c. [Hebrew: el] very frequently denotes the cause upon which the
effect depends, _e.g._, in 1 Kings xvi. 7; Ps. xliv. 23, lxix. 8; Jer.
xv. 15; Job xxxiv. 6. The whole following clause is treated as a noun.
Ordinarily, it is explained: Although, &c. But this use of [Hebrew: el]
is quite isolated; it occurs only in two passages of the Book of Job,
in x. 7 and xxxiv. 6. The former explanation is found in the Alexand.
version: [Greek: hoti anomian ouk epoiêse.] The innocence is designated
negatively, and in an external manner ( [Hebrew: Hms] and [Hebrew:
mrmh] are gross sins). The reason of this is [Pg 295] in the intention
of His enemies, which is expressed in the preceding words, to give Him
His grave with the wicked. Since He had not acted like them, God took
care that He did not receive their ignominious burial, but an
honourable one. In reference to the passage under consideration, it is
said in 1 Pet. ii. 22: [Greek: hos amartian ouk epoiêse oude heurethe
dolos en tô stomati autou]. Instead of "violence," Peter intentionally
employs "sin."--_Hofmann_ has advanced the following arguments against
the explanation which we have given. 1. "By what is this contrast
(which, according to our explanation, is contained in the words: They
gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death)
to be recognized in the text? There remains no trace of a contrast,
unless it be contained in [Hebrew: rweiM] and [Hebrew: ewir]. Are these
really two ideas so contradictory, that they alone are sufficient to
bring into contrariety two clauses which have altogether the appearance
of being intended for the same purpose?" But in this argument,
_Hofmann_ overlooks the circumstance, that the wicked are specially
_criminals_--for they alone had a peculiar grave--and that it is not
the general relation of the wicked and rich to one another which comes
into consideration, but especially the relation in which they stand to
one another as regards the _burial_. If this be kept in view, it is at
once evident that the contrariety is expressed with sufficient
clearness. From Isa. xxii. 16; Job xxi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 57, it appears
that the rich man, and the honourable grave, are closely connected with
each other. Hence, it must have been by an opposite activity that to
the Servant of God a grave was assigned with the wicked, and with a
rich. 2. "To be rich is not in itself a sin which deserved an
ignominious burial, far less received it, but on the other hand, to
find his grave with a rich man is not an indemnification to the just
for the disgrace of having died the death of a criminal." But the fact
that the first Evangelist reports it so minutely (Matt. xxvii. 57-61)
clearly enough shows the importance of the circumstance; comp. also how
John, in chap. xix. 33 ff., points out the circumstance that Christ's
legs were not broken, as were those of the malefactors. In the little,
the great is prepared and prefigured. And although the burial with a
rich man is, in itself, of no small importance when viewed as the first
point where the exaltation [Pg 296] began--in the connection with the
preceding and following verses, we cannot but look upon it as being
symbolically significant and important. And how could it be otherwise,
since the burial of the Servant of God with a rich man implies that the
rich man himself has been gained for Him? It has, farther, been
objected that Christ was not buried _with_ Joseph, but in his grave
only, but in an ideal point of view _with_ has its full right. Comp.
chap. xiv. 19, where it is said to the king of Babylon: "But thou art
cast out of thy grave," although, bodily, he had not yet been in the
grave; but he had a right to come like his ancestors; he had, in an
ideal point of view, taken his place there.--_Beck_ says: "The orthodox
expositors are strongly embarrassed with these words." That is indeed a
remarkable interchange of positions. Embarrassment!--that is the sign
of everything which unscriptural exegesis advances on this verse. It is
concentrated in the [Hebrew: ewir]. The most varied conjectures and
freaks are here so many symptoms of helpless embarrassment. According
to the opinion of several interpreters, the rich man here stands in the
sense of the ungodly. In this, even _Luther_ (marginal note: "rich man,
one who in his doings founds himself on riches," _i.e._, an ungodly
man), and _Calvin_ had preceded them. The assertion that the rich, can
simply stand for the wicked, can neither be proved from Job xxvii. 19
(for there, according to the context, the rich is equivalent to "he who
is wicked, notwithstanding his riches"), nor from the word of the Lord
in Matt. xix. 23: [Greek: duskolôs plousios eiseleusetai eis tên
basileian tôn ouranôn.] For that which, on a special occasion, the Lord
here says of the rich, applies to the poor also. Poverty, not less than
wealth, is encompassed with obstacles to conversion, which can be
removed only by the omnipotence of divine grace. According to Matt.
xiii. 22, the word is not only choked by the deceitfulness of riches,
but is as much so by care also, the dangers of which are particularly
set forth by our Lord in Matt. vi. 25 ff. In Prov. xxx. 8, 9 it is
said: "Give me neither poverty nor riches, lest I be full and deny
thee, and say: Where is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take
the name of my God in vain." The dangers of riches are more frequently
pointed out in Scripture than those of poverty; but this fact is
accounted for by the circumstance, that riches are surrounded [Pg 297]
with a glittering appearance, and that it is therefore necessary to
warn those who are apt to choose them for their highest good. _Stier_
rightly calls to mind the promise of earthly blessings to those who
fear God. But the circumstance must not be overlooked that the rich
comes here into consideration, chiefly as to his _burial_. The Prophet
would then not only proceed from the idea that all rich people are
wicked, but also would simply suppose that all the rich receive an
ignominious burial. But of that, the parable of the rich man in Luke
xvi. 22, knows nothing: [Greek: apethane de kai ho plousios kai
etaphê], according to his riches; it is in hell only that he receives
his reward. In opposition to _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ remarks: "That
transition of the signification is a fable." Following the example of
_Martini_ he derives [Hebrew: ewir] from the Arabic. But in opposition
to that, _Gesenius_ again remarks in the _Thesaurus_: "_Sed haud
minoribus difficultatibus laborat ea ratio, qua improbitatis
significatum voluerunt Martinius et Hitzigius, collata nimirum radice_
[Hebrew: ewr] "_caespitavit_." _Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum cum
verbo_ [Hebrew: ewr] _necessitudinem habet, ita ut_ [Hebrew: ewir] _h.
l._ [Greek: ap. leg.] _esset; tum caespitandi vis nusquam ad peccatum,
licet ad fortunam adversam, translata est._" If, with words of such
frequent occurrence, it were allowable to search in the dialects, the
business of the expounder would be a very ungrateful one. Nor does the
form, which is commonly passive, favour this interpretation. According
to _Beck_, [Hebrew: ewir] is another form for [Hebrew: eriC]. Others
would change the reading. _Ewald_ proposes [Hebrew: ewiq]; Böttcher,
[Hebrew: ewi re]. Against all those conjectures, moreover, the
circumstance militates, that, according to them, the verse would still
belong to the humiliation of the Servant of God; whereas the
description of the glorification had already begun in the preceding
verse. For [Hebrew: bmvtiv] "in His death," _Gesenius_ and others
propose to read [Hebrew: bmvtiv], to which they assign the
signification "His tomb-hill." But, altogether apart from this
arbitrary change of the vowels, there is opposed to this conjecture the
circumstance, that [Hebrew: bmh] never occurs of the grave. According
to _Gesenius_, [Hebrew: bmvt], in Ezek. xliii. means "tombs;" but the
common signification "high places," must be retained there also. In a
spiritual point of view the sanctuaries of the Lord had become "high
places."
Ver. 10. "_And the Lord was pleased painfully to crush_ [Pg 298] _Him:
when His soul hath given restitution, He shall see seed, He shall
prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through
His hand._"