'Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall
divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul
unto death: and was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the
sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.'--ISAIAH
liii. 12.
The first clause of this verse is somewhat difficult. There are two
ways of understanding it. One is that adopted in A. V., according to
which the suffering Servant is represented as equal to the greatest
conquerors. He is to be as gloriously successful in His victory as they
have been in theirs. But there are two very strong objections to this
rendering-first, that it takes 'the many' in the sense of _mighty_,
thus obscuring the identity of the expression here and in the previous
verse and in the end of this verse; and secondly, that it gives a very
feeble and frigid ending to the prophecy. It does not seem a worthy
close simply to say that the Servant is to be like a Cyrus or a
Nebuchadnezzar in His conquests.
The other rendering, though there are some difficulties, is to be
preferred. According to it 'the many' and 'the strong' are themselves
the prey or spoil. The words might be read, 'I will apportion to Him
the many, and He shall apportion to Himself the strong ones.'
This retains the same meaning of 'many' for the same expression
throughout the context, and is a worthy ending to the prophecy. The
force of the clause is then to represent the suffering Servant as a
conqueror, leading back from His conquests a long train of captives, a
rich booty.
Notice some points about this closing metaphor.
Mark its singular contrast to the tone of the rest of the prophecy.
Note the lowliness, the suffering, the minor key of it all, and then,
all at once, the leap up to rapture and triumph. The special form of
the metaphor strikes one as singular. Nothing in the preceding context
even remotely suggests it. Even the previous clause about 'making the
many righteous' does not do much to prepare the way for it. Whatever be
our explanation of the words, it must be one that does full justice to
this metaphor, and presents some conquering power or person, whose
victories are brilliant and real enough to be worthy to stand at the
close of such a prophecy. We must keep in mind, too, what has been
remarked on the two previous verses, that this victorious campaign and
growing conquest is achieved after the Servant is dead. That is a
paradox. And note that the strength of language representing His
activity can scarcely be reconciled with the idea that it is only the
post-mortem influence of His life which is meant.
Note, too, the singular blending of God's power and the Servant's own
activity in the winning of this extended sovereignty. Side by side the
two are put. The same verb is used in order to emphasise the intended
parallel. 'I will divide,' 'He shall divide.' I will give Him--He shall
conquer for Himself. Remember the intense vehemence with which the Old
Testament guards the absolute supremacy of divine power, and how
strongly it always puts the thought that God is everything and man
nothing. Look at the contrast of the tone when a human conqueror, whose
conquests are the result of God's providence, is addressed (xlv. 1-3).
There is an entire suppression of his personality, not a word about his
bravery, his military genius, or anything in him. It is all _I, I, I_.
Remember how, in chapter x., one of the sins for which the Assyrian is
to be destroyed is precisely that he thought of his victories as due to
his own strength and wisdom. So he is indignantly reminded that he is
only 'a staff in Mine hand,' the axe with which God hewed the nations,
whereas here the voice of God Himself speaks, and gives a strange place
beside Himself to the will and power of this Conqueror. This feature of
the prophecy should be accounted for in any satisfactory interpretation.
Note, too, the wide sweep of the Servant's dominion, which carries us
back to the beginning of this prophecy in chapter lii. 15, where we
hear of the Servant as 'sprinkling' (or startling') many nations, and
the 'kings' is parallel with the 'strong' in this verse. No bounds are
assigned to the Servant's conquests, which are, if not declared to be
universal, at least indefinitely extended and striding on to world-wide
empire.
These points are plainly here. I do not dilate upon them. But I ask
whether any of the interpretations of these words, except one, gives
adequate force to them? Is there anything in the history of the
restored exiles which corresponds to this picture? Even if you admit
the violent hypothesis that there was a better part of the nation, so
good that the national sorrows had no chastisement for them, and the
other violent hypothesis that the devoutest among the exiles suffered
most, and the other that the death and burial and resurrection of the
Servant only mean the reformation wrought on Israel by captivity. What
is there in the history of Israel which can be pointed at as the
conquest of the world? Was the nation that bore the yokes of a Ptolemy,
an Antiochus, a Herod, a Caesar, the fulfiller of this dream of
world-conquest? There is only one thing which can be called the Jew
conquering the world. It is that which, as I believe, is meant here,
viz. Christ's conquest. Apart from that, I know of nothing which would
not be ludicrously disproportionate if it were alleged as fulfilment of
this glowing prophecy.
This prophetic picture is at least four hundred years before Christ, by
the admission of those who bring it lowest down, in their eagerness to
get rid of prophecy. The life of Christ does correspond to it, in such
a way that, clause by clause, it reads as if it were quite as much a
history of Jesus as a prophecy of the Servant. This certainly is an
extraordinary coincidence if it be not a prophecy. And there is really
no argument against the Messianic interpretation, except dogmatic
prejudice--'there cannot be prophecy.'
No straining is needed in order to fit this great prophetic picture of
the world-Conqueror to Jesus. Even that, at first sight incongruous,
picture of a victor leading long lines of captives, such as we see on
Assyrian slabs and Egyptian paintings, is historically true of Him who
'leads captivity captive,' and is, through the ages, winning ever fresh
victories, and leading His enemies, turned into lovers, in His
triumphal progress. He, and He only, really owns men. His slaves have
made real self-surrenders to Him. Other conquerors may imprison or load
with irons or deport to other lands, but they are only lords of bodies.
Jesus' chains are silken, and bind hearts that are proud of their
bonds. He carries off His free prisoners 'from the power of darkness'
into His kingdom of light. His slaves rejoice to say, 'I am not my
own,' and he only truly possesses himself who has given himself away to
the Conquering Christ. For all these centuries He has been conquering
hearts, enthralling and thereby liberating wills, making Himself the
life of lives. There is nothing else the least like the bond between
Jesus and millions who never saw him. Who among all the leaders of
thought or religious teachers has been able to impress his personality
on others and to dominate them in the fashion that Jesus has done and
is doing to-day? How has He done this thing, which no other man has
been able in the least to do? What is His charm, the secret of His
power? The prophet has no doubt what it is, and unfolds it to us with a
significant 'For.' We turn, then, to the prophetic explanation of that
worldwide empire and note--