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 byMichaelis: "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 fromעליוin 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. Thesprout, the twig, designates, even in itself, the poor condition; and, notwithstandingStier'scounter-remarks, it is the pointing to such a poor condition alone which suits the connection, and there is no reason why we should here alreadysupply "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,גזע. in chap. xi. 8.יונקelsewhere always signifies "suckling;" comp. here chap. xi. 8. Of the sprout, elsewhere, the feminineיונקתis used. According toStier, 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.:ὡς παιδίον. The suffix inלפניו"before Him" refers to the immediately precedingיהוה, 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.--Therootdenotes 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,Stierstrikingly 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, theydespised Him. Theונראהוis, by most of the modern interpreters, in opposition to the accents, connected with the first member: "He had no form nor comeliness thatwe 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 ofראהwith the Accusat., withoutב, 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 theEcce Homo, the full historical realization of it.Calvinrightly 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 hadnot, 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 tooffendandrepulsehim 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" (חדלin 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.The explanation: "Forsaken by men, rejected of men," is opposed by theusus 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 herefiguratively. 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, thatהחליin ver. 10, evidently refers to theחליin this place. As an acquaintance of disease, the Lord especially showed himself in Hispassion. And thenevery sorrowmay 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."הסתירalways means "to hide;" the whole phrase occurs in chap. l. 6, in the signification "to hide the face."מסתרis the Participle inHiphil. 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 ofsin. No horror was like that which was felt in his presence.Henceit 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, theחדל אישיםlikewise 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 termנגועin ver. 4 likewise points.Beck'sobjection: "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 comparativeכmust not be overlooked. The comparison with the leper, the culminating point of all contempt, is highly suitable to the parallelism withנבזה. Ordinarilyמסתרis now understood as asubstantivum 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.--נבזהis 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 theirvicarious 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 wordsחליandמכאבof 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 accountof 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.Beckremarks: "Properly speaking, they had not become sick or unfortunate at all; this hada prioribeen 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,spiritualdiseases, 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 ofsins, do not occur at all in the Old Testament. The circumstance that in the parallel passage, vers. 11 and 12, the bearing of thetransgressionsandsinsis 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,נשא חליoccurs 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:πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ἐθεράπευσεν, ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασε; and this deserves a consideration so much the more careful, that the Evangelist here intentionally deviates from the Alexandrine version (οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται). In doing so, "wedo 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 translateנשאby "to take away;" but even the parallelסבלis conclusive against such a view; and, farther, the ordinary use ofנשאof 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 onlyput awayour 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 oursins, of which the sufferings are the consequence; compare 1 Peter ii. 24:ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον.--Plagued,smitten of God,afflicted, are expressions which were commonly used in reference to the visitation of sinful men. It is especially in the wordplagued, 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 Iplagued, 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 aplagueupon the king, and he was a leper unto the day of his death."נגע"plague" is in Lev. xiii., as it were,nomen propriumfor the leprosy, which in the law is so distinctly designated as a punishment of sin.--הכהtoo, 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 ispunishment. 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."
הוא"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 ofחלל, from the original signification "to pierce," and adopting the general signification "to wound;" the LXX.ἐτραυματίσθη.The chastisement of our peaceis 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;δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 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. Thechastisementcan, according to the context, be only an actual one, only such as consists in the infliction of someevil. It is in misconception and narrowness of view that the explanation of the followers ofMenkeoriginated: "The instruction for our peace is with Him." This explanation militates against the whole context, in which not thedoctrinebut thesufferingof the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelismwith: "By His wounds we are healed;" against theעליו, "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 pressingburden. 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. ThusHitzigremarks: "The chastisement of our peaceis 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 inמוסרthe 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 thatמוסרdoes 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: "Badchastisementshall be to those that forsake the way, and he that hateth chastisement shall die," on whichMichaelisremarks: "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 ofretribution, and that the Servant of God stands forth as our Substitute.--נרפא, Preter. Niph., hence "healing has been bestowed upon us;"--רפאwithל, 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 thecircumstance 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."
Calvinremarks: "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 toHofmann, the going astray designates theliabilityto 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."Michaelispertinently 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;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:ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους ἐσπλαγχνίσθη περὶ αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἦσαν ἐσκυλμένοι καὶ ἐῤῥιμένοι ὡσεὶ πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα.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:πάντες ὅσοι πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦλθον, κλέπται εἰσὶ καὶ λῃσταί--פגעwithבsignifies "to hit;" henceHiphil, "to cause to hit." The iniquities of the whole communityhitthe 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 isdoneaway 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 Godboresuch 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 wordנגש, "He was oppressed:" then, this condition of the Servantof God is brought into connection with Hisconduct, which, only in this connection, appears in its full majesty.--נגשis the Preterite inNiphal, and not, asBeckthinks, 1st pers. Fut.Kal. For the Future would be here unusual; the verb has elsewhere the Future ino; the suffix is wanting, and the sense which then arises suits only the untenable supposition that, in vers. 1-10, theGentilesare speaking. TheNiphaloccurs 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.נגשandנענה"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" separateנענהfrom what precedes, and connect it with what follows. The explanation: "He was oppressed, but He suffered patiently," has this opposed to it, that the twoNiphals, 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.--Inיפתח, 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. Thelambpoints 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 precedingרחלis 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:ὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει, παρεδίδου δὲ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως; and likewise Matt. xxvii. 12-14:καὶ ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων οὐὲν ἀπεκρίνατο. Τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· οὐκ ἀκούεις πόσασου καταμαρτυροῦσιν; καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἓν ῥῆμα, ὥστε θαυμάζειν τὸν ἡγεμόνα λίαν.Comp. xxvi. 62; Mark xv. 5; Luke xxiii. 9; John xix. 9.
The third subdivision of the principal portion, vers. 8-10, describesthe 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:κᾀγὼ ἑὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν), 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.--עצר"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.--משפטis commonly referred to the judgment which the enemies of the Servant of God passed upon Him, The premisedעצרthen 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,משפטserves as a limitation forעצר. 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, thedivineis 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 uponHim by God.--לקחwithמן"to be taken away from;" according toStier: "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;" byJerome, who says on this passage: "From tribulation and judgment He ascended, as a conqueror, to the Father;" and byMichaeliswho 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: "Throughoppression and judgment He wasdragged 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;לקחcannot, by itself, signify "to be dragged to execution"--in that case, as in Prov. xxiv. 11, "to death" would have been added;מןmust be taken in the signification, "from," "out of," as in the subsequentמארץ, compare 2 Kings iii. 9, whereלקחwithמןsignifies "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 hadtakenhim."--And His generation who can think it out?דור, 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.שוחandשיח"to meditate," is commonly connected withבof the object, but occurs also withthe 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.:τὴν γενέαν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται.Next to it, comes the explanation: "Who can think out Hisposterity;" but against this, it is conclusive thatדורnever 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 aspiritualone, it is substantially identical withgenerationhere. 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 toדורsignifications which cannot be vindicated. Thus, the translation ofLuther: "Who shall disclose the length of His life?" that ofHitzig: His destiny; that ofBeck: His importance and influence in the history of the world; that ofKnobel: His dwelling place,i.e., His grave, who considered? The signification, "dwelling place," does not at all belong toדור. In Isaiah xxxviii. 12,דורare the cotemporaries from whom the dying man is taken away, and who are withdrawn from him: "Mygenerationis 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" forאת, the sign of the Accusative, cannot stand before theNomin. 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 veryhard, 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.נגזר"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 cognateנגרזalso has, in Psa. xxxi. 23, the signification of extermination.למו, poetical form forלהם, refers to the collectiveעם. 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.Stierprefers 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 inלמוas a Singular: "on account of the transgression of my people, punishment was to Him." And passages, indeed, are not wanting where the supposition thatמוdesignates 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.--Byעמי"my people," the hypothesis of the non-Messianic interpreters is set aside, that invers. 1-10 theGentilesare 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.σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, 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."
ויתןis 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 adoublesubject. 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." Thewickedwho are buried apart from others, can be the real criminals only, the transgressors in ver. 12. Criminals received, among the Jews, an ignominious burial. ThusJosephus, 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(seeIkenon 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(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.ויתן, 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 asἄνθρωπος πλούσιοςin 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 deathis, in point of fact, equivalent to: "after He had died;" but, notwithstanding, there is no necessity for giving to theבthe signification "after." Death rather denotes thecondition of death;in deathis 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 Pluralמותים"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 ofחיים, for which reason it commends itself to explainארץ חייםin 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.עלvery 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 ofעלis 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:ὅτι ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε. The innocence is designated negatively, and in an external manner (חמסandמרמהare gross sins). The reason of this isin 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:ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε οὐδὲ εὑρέθε δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. Instead of "violence," Peter intentionally employs "sin."--Hofmannhas 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 inרשעיםandעשיר. 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,Hofmannoverlooks the circumstance, that the wicked are speciallycriminals--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 theburial. 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 exaltationbegan--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 buriedwithJoseph, but in his grave only, but in an ideal point of viewwithhas 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.--Becksays: "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 theעשיר. 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, evenLuther(marginal note: "rich man, one who in his doings founds himself on riches,"i.e., an ungodly man), andCalvinhad 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:δυσκόλως πλούσιος εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.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 surroundedwith a glittering appearance, and that it is therefore necessary to warn those who are apt to choose them for their highest good.Stierrightly 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 hisburial. 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:ἀπέθανε δὲ καὶ ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ἐτάφη, according to his riches; it is in hell only that he receives his reward. In opposition toGesenius,Hitzigremarks: "That transition of the signification is a fable." Following the example ofMartinihe derivesעשירfrom the Arabic. But in opposition to that,Geseniusagain remarks in theThesaurus: "Sed haud minoribus difficultatibus laborat ea ratio, qua improbitatis significatum voluerunt Martinius et Hitzigius, collata nimirum radiceעשר"caespitavit."Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum cum verboעשרnecessitudinem habet, ita utעשירh. l.απ. λεγ.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 toBeck,עשירis another form forעריץ. Others would change the reading.Ewaldproposesעשיק; Böttcher,עשי רע. 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. Forבְמותיו"in His death,"Geseniusand others propose to readבָמותיו, 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, thatבמהnever occurs of the grave. According toGesenius,במות, 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 crushHim: 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."
And the Lord was pleased--This pleasure of the Lord is not such an one as proceeds from caprice. The ground on which it rests has already been minutely exhibited in what precedes. By the vicarious influence of this suffering, peace is to be acquired for mankind; and since this object is based upon the divine nature, upon God's mercy, the choice of the means also, by which alone it could be attained (for, without a violation of the divine character, sin could not remain unpunished), must be traced to the divine character.Herethe ground on which the pleasure rests is stated in the words immediately following,--a connection which is clearly indicated by the obvious relation in which theחפץ יהוהof the close stands toיהוה חפץof the beginning; so that the sense is: It was the pleasure, &c., and this for the purpose that, after having made an offering for sin, He should see seed, &c. Hence the pleasure of the Lord has this in view:--that the will of the Lord should be realized, His Servant glorified, and the salvation of mankind promoted.Painfully to crush Him.חלה"to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense theNiphaloccurs in Amos vi. 6, and the participleנחלהin the signification "painful," "grievous," in Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other passages, InHiphilit means: "to make painful," Mic. vi. 13. The common explanation, "The Lord was pleased to crush Him, He has made Him sick," has this against it, that Copula and Suffix are wanting inהחלי, and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a very disagreeable manner. And then the passage in Micah, which we have quoted, decides against it.--When His soul hath given restitution.There cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the soul which gives restitution.Knobel'sexplanation: "His soul gives itself," is not countenanced by theusus loquendi;שיםis not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose withHofmannthatתשיםis the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In opposition to this view, there is not only the circumstance that Jehovah is spokenofbefore and afterwards, but, in a material point of view, the circumstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally, all sacrifices, were never offered upbyGod,but alwaystoGod. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of God receives the reward for His meritorious work, proves that it is He who offers up the sacrifice. But, on the other hand, it is, in point of fact, the soul only which can be theoffering, therestitution; for it could scarcely be imagined that, just here, that should be omitted on which everything mainly depends. It is sufficiently evident, from what precedes,whoit is that offers the restitution; what the restitution was, it was necessary distinctly to point out.Farther--In the case of sacrifices, it is just the soul upon which every thing depends; so that if the soul be mentioned in a context which treats of sacrifices, it is,a priori, probable that it will be the object offered up. In Lev. xvii. 11, it is said: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I give it to you upon the altar, to atone for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," viz., by the soul "per animam, vi animae in eo sanguine constantis" (Gussetius).[8]The soul, when thus considered as the passive object, is here therefore in a high degree in its proper place; and there can the less be any doubt of its occurring here in this sense, that it occurs twice more in vers. 11 and 12, of the natural psychical life of the Servant of God, which was given up to suffering and death. But, on the other hand, if the soul be considered as the active object, it stands here at all events rather idle,--a circumstance which is sufficiently apparent from the supposition of several interpreters, thatנפש"soul," stands here simply for the personal pronoun,--"His soul," for "He," ausus loquendiwhich occurs in Arabic, but not in Hebrew. And, strictly speaking, the offering of the sacrifice does not belong to the soul, but to the spirit of the Servant of God, compare Heb. ix. 14, according to which passage, Christδιὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ θεῷ; and on the subject of the difference between soul and spirit, compare my Commentary on Ps. iv. p. lxxxvii. But how will it now be possible to reconcile and harmonizeour two results, that, in a formal point of view, the soul is that which offers up, and, in a material point of view, that which is offered up? By the hypothesis that,in a rhetorical way of speaking, that is here assigned to the soul as an action which, in point of fact, is done upon it.All that is necessary is to translate: "If His soul puts or gives a trespass-offering;" for, "to put," stands here, as it does so frequently, in the sense of "to give," compare Ezek. xx. 28, where it is used in this sense in reference to sacrifice. But, in point of fact, this is equivalent to: "If it is made a trespass-offering," or, "If He, the Servant of God, offers it as a trespass-offering." It is analogous to this when, in Job xiv. 22, the soul of the deceased laments; and a cognate mode of representation prevails in Rev. vi. 9, where, to the souls of the slain, life is assigned for the sole purpose of their giving utterance to that which was the result of the thought regarding them, in combination with the circumstances of the time. To a certain degree analogous is also chap. lx. 7, where it is said of the sacrificial animals: "They ascend, for my pleasure, mine altar." The fact that it is in reality the soul which is offered up, is confirmed also by the remarkable reference to the passage before us in the discourses of our Lord. Our Lord says in John x. 12:ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός· ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν χυχὴν αὑτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων.Ver. 15:καὶ τὴν χυχήν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων.Vers. 17, 18:διὰ τοῦτο ὁ πατὴρ με ἀγαπᾷ, ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν. Οὐδεὶς αἴρει αὐτὴν ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ· ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν.In John xv. 13:μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα τὶς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ ὑπὲρ φίλων αὑτοῦ.The expression: "To put one's soul for some one," does not, independently and by itself, occur anywhere else in the New Testament; in John xiii. 37, 38, Peter takes the word out of the mouth of the Saviour, and in 1 John iii. 16, it is used in reference to those declarations of our Lord. The expression is nowhere met with in any profane writers, nor in the Hellenisticusus loquendi. The following reasons prove that it refers to the Old Testament, and especially to the passage under consideration. 1. Its Hebraizing character.De WetteandLückeerroneously takeθεῖναιin the sense of laying down; but that is too negative. It is evident that the Hebraism "to put," instead of "to give," has beentransferred into Greek, as is proved by the synonymousδοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦin Mark x. 45; Matt. xx. 28.--2. The fact that the same uncommon expression occurs not fewer than five times in the same discourse of Christ, and that so intentionally and emphatically, is explicable only when it was thereby intended to point to an important fundamental passage of the Old Testament.--3. In the discourses of our Lord, the expression is, no less than in the passage before us, used of His sacrificial death.--If, then, it be established that those passages in which our Lord speaks of aputtingof His soul, refer to the passage under consideration, this must be acknowledged of those also in which He speaks of agivingof His soul, as in Matt. xx. 28:δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, where theλύτρονclearly points to theאשםhere. In all those utterances, the Saviour simply has reduced the words to what they signify, just as, in quoting the passage Zech. xiii. 7, in Matt. xxvi. 31, He likewise drops the rhetorical figure, the address to the sword. He himself appears simply as He who offers up; the soul is that which is offered up.--אשםis, in Numb. v. 5, called that of which some one has unjustly robbed another, and which he is bound torepayto him. An essential feature of sin is therobbing of Godwhich is thereby committed, the debt thereby incurred, which implies the necessity ofrecompence. All sin-offerings are, in the Mosaic economy, at the same time debt-offerings; and this feature is very intentionally and emphatically pointed out in them. If, besides the sin-offerings, there is still established a kind of trespass-offerings, theאשם, for sins in which the idea of incurring a debt comes out with special prominence, this is done only with the view, that this feature, thus brought forward by itself and independently, may be so much the more deeply impressed, in order that, in the other sin-offerings too, it may be the more clearly perceived. Compare the investigation on the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings in my work on theGenuineness of the Pentateuch, ii. p. 174 ff. But the sin- and trespass-offerings of the Old Testament typically point to a true spiritual sin- and trespass-offering; and their chief object was to awaken in the people of God the consciousness of the necessity of substitution (compare my Book:Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift, Berlin 1852). This antetypical sacrifice will be offered up by the true High-Priest. For the sins of the human race whichwithout compensation, cannot be forgiven, He furnishes the restitution which could not be paid by the sinners, and thereby works out the justification of the sinner before God.--To the trespass-offering here, all those passages of the New Testament point, in which Christ is spoken of as the sacrifice for our sins, especially 2 Cor. v. 21, where the apostle says that God made Christ to beἁμαρτρίαfor us, that in Him we might be made righteous before God; Rom. viii. 3, according to which God sent Christπερὶ ἁμαρτρίας, as a sin-offering; Rom. iii. 25, where Christ is calledἱλαστήριον, propitiation; 1 John ii. 2:καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, iv. 10; Heb. ix. 14.--Theאִםat the beginning must not be explained by "as" a signification, which it never has; it has its ordinary signification "when," and the Future is to be understood as a real Future: the offering of the trespass-offering is theconditionof His seeing, &c., and, according to the context, indeed, the absolutelynecessarycondition. The translation: "Even if" could proceed from one only who had not understood this context. It is not death in general, but sacrificial death, which is specially spoken of; and to such a death, which is a necessary foundation of the glorification, and especially the foundation of "He shall see seed," "when" only is suitable, and not "even if."--In the words: "He shall see seed, prolong His days," that is, in a higher sense, promised to this Servant of God, which, under the Old Testament, was considered as a distinguished divine blessing. The spiritual interpretation has the less difficulty, that it must necessarily be granted in the case ofאשם, immediately preceding. Just in the same relation in which the sin-offering of the Servant of God stands to the sin-offering of the bullocks and goats, does His posterity, the length of His days, stand to the ordinary posterity and length of days. Theseedof the Servant of God, identical with His generation, in ver. 8, are just those for whom, according to the words immediately preceding, He offers His soul as a trespass-offering--the many who, according to ver. 12, are assigned to Him as His portion; who, according to chap. lii. 15, are to be sprinkled by Him; who, according to ver. 11, are to be justified by Him; they whose sins He has taken upon Him (ver. 5), and for whom He intercedes before God, ver. 12. Even in the Old Testament, the word "children" is frequently used in a spiritualsense. In Gen. vi. 2, believers appear as the children of God. The Israelites are not unfrequently designated as sons of Jehovah. Those prophets who were endowed with specially rich gifts, were surrounded by a crowd ofsonsof the prophets. The wise man, too, looks upon his disciples as his spiritual sons, Prov. iv. 20, xix. 27; Eccles. xii. 12. In the New Testament, the Lord addresses the man sick of the palsy byτέκνον. Matt. ix. 2; and with special emphasis. His apostles aslittle children,τεκνία ἔτι μικρὸν μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι, John xiii. 33; and the Apostles, too, consider those who have been awakened by their ministry as their spiritual children, 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 2; 1 Pet. v. 13.The thought is this--that in the sacrificial death of the Servant of God there will be an animating power; that, just thereby, He will found His Church.The words: "He shall prolong His days," allude, as it appears, to the promise which was given to David and his seed, comp. Ps. xxi 5: "He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it to him, even length of days for ever and ever;" 1 Sam. vii. 13: "I will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever," comp. ver. 16; Ps. lxxxix. 5, cxxxii. 12,--a promise which found its final fulfilment in Christ. But the long life here must not be viewed asisolated, but must be understood in close connection both with what precedes and what follows. It is the life of the Servant of God in communion with His seed, in carrying out the will of God.חפץnever means "business," but always "pleasure;" and this signification, which occurs in chap. xliv. 28 also, is here the less to be given up, that theחפץhere, at the close, evidently refers to theחפץat the beginning. By this reference, the reason is stated why it was thepleasureof the Lord to crush Him. According to vers. 11 and 12, it is the pleasure of God that sinners should be justified through Him, on the foundation of His vicarious suffering; according to chap. xlii. and xlix., that Israel should be redeemed, and the Gentiles saved. While the pleasure of the Lord is prospering through His hand, he, at the same time, sees seed.
In vers. 11 and 12, we have the closing words of the Lord.
Ver. 11. "On account of the sufferings of His soul He seeth, He is satisfied; by His knowledge He, the Righteous One, my Servant, shall justify the many, and He shall bear their iniquities."
Theמןinמעמלis "on account of." In ver. 10, to which the discourse of the Lord is, in the first instance, connected, the suffering likewise appears as the cause of the glorification. The Vulgate translates: "Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus;" the LXX. rather feebly: ἀπὸ του̂ πόνου τη̂ς ψυχη̂ς αὐτου̂. Withיראהthe object is omitted, and that purposely, in order that the words of God may be immediately connected with ver. 10. We must supply: the fruits and rewards of His sufferings announced there (just as, in a manner quite similar, in chap. xlix. 7, "they shall see," refers to the preceding verse), specially that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through His hand,--which, in the sequel, is enlarged upon. The words: "He is satisfied," point out that the blissful consequences of the atoning suffering will take place in the highest fulness.בדעתוmust, according to the accents, be connected with the subsequent words. The knowledge does not belong to the Servant of God, in so far as it dwells in Him, but as it concerns Him; just as theἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦin Luke xi. 42, and in other passages does not mean the love which dwells in God, but the love which has God for its object. "By His knowledge" is thus equivalent to: by their knowing Him, getting acquainted with Him, This knowledge of the Servant of God according to His principal work, as it was described in what precedes, viz., mediatorial office, orfaith, is the subjective condition of justification. As the efficient cause of it, the vicarious suffering of the Servant of God was represented in the preceding context. It is just this, which is subjectively appropriated by the knowledge of the Servant of God, and which must be conceived of as essential and living. ThusJ. H. Michaelissays:Per scientiam sui(Clericus:Cognitione sui),non qua ipse cognoscit, sed qua vera fide et fiducia ipse tanquam propitiator cognoscitur.The explanation: "By His knowledge (in the sense of understanding) or wisdom," gives a sense unsuitable to the context. In the whole prophecy, the Servant of God does not appear as a Teacher, but as a Redeemer; and the relation ofצדיקtoהצדיקshows that here, too, He is considered as such. To supply, as is done by some interpreters: "in which (knowledge) He perceived the only possible means of redemption and reconciliation, and gave practical effect to this knowledge," is, after all, too unnatural; thediscourse would in that case be so incomplete that we should have been shut up to conjectures. Others translate: "By His doctrine;" butדעתnever means "doctrine." The explanation: "By His full, absolute knowledge of the divine counsel" (Hävernick), or, "by the absolute knowledge of God" (Umbreit), puts into the simple word, which only means "knowledge," more than is implied in it. According to the parallelism with the subsequent words: "He shall bear their iniquities." and according to the context (for, in the whole section, the Servant of God is not described as aTeacher, but as aPriest, as He who, in order to expiate our sin, has offered himself up as a sacrifice),הצדיקmust not be translated "to convert," but to "justify." In favour of this translation is also the construction withל, which is to be accounted for from a modification of the signification: "to bring righteousness." But it is specially the position ofצדיקwhich is decisive in favour of it. It is for the justification only that the personal righteousness of the Servant of God has that significant meaning which is, in this manner, assigned to it. Moreover, in theusus loquendi, the meaningto justifyonly occurs. In it, the verb is used, chap. v. 23, l. 8; and there is no reason for deviating from it in the only passage which can be adduced in favour of the signification "to convert," viz., Dan. xii. 3: "And the wise,משכילים, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, andjustifymany as the stars, for ever and ever." In this passage, that is applied to believers which, in chap. liii., was ascribed to Christ. Even a certain strangeness in the style makes us suppose such a transference; and the fact, that Daniel had our passage specially in view, cannot be doubted, if we compare theמשכיליםof Daniel with theישכילwith which the prophecy under consideration opens (chap, lii, 13), and Daniel's: "justify many," with the passage before us. The justification, which in its full sense belongs to Christ the Head only, is by Daniel ascribed to the "wise," because they are the instruments through whom many attain justification;Calvin:Quia causa sunt ministerialis justitiae et salutis multorum.Hävernickrefers, for a comparison, to 1 Tim. iv. 16: "For, in doing this, thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee."עדיקmust not be immediately connected withעבדי; for, in that case, it ought to have stood after it, and been qualifiedby the article. On the contrary,עדיקstands first, because it stands by itself and substantively: "The righteous One, My Servant." A similar construction occurs, Jer. iii., vii. 10: "And she does not turn unto me, the treacherous one,בגירה, her sister Judah." By thus makingצדיקprominent, and connecting it immediately withהצדיק, it is intended to point out the close connection in which the righteousness of the Servant of God, who, although altogether innocent and sinless, ver. 9, yet suffered the punishment of sin, stands with the justification to be bestowed by Him.Maurerthus pertinently expresses this: "To many, for righteous is my Servant, shall He procure righteousness." By these words thus theיזה, in chap. lii. 15, is explained; and the seal of the divine confirmation is impressed upon that which, in vers. 4-6, the believing Church had said, especially upon the words: "By His wounds we are healed," ver. 5. The "many" points back to chap. liii. 15, and forms the contrast not toall(Stier: "Because He cannot, overturning all laws, save all by coercion, or arbitrary will,"--a limitation which would in this context be out of place), but tofew: The one, the many, Rom. v. 15.--"And He shall bear their iniquities;" the iniquities and their punishment, as a heavy burden which the Servant of God lifts off from those who are groaning under their weight, and takes upon himselfJeromesays: "And He himself shall bear the iniquities which they could not bear, and by the weight of which they were borne down."Calvinexpresses himself thus: "A wonderful change indeed! Christ justifies men by giving them His righteousness, and in exchange. He takes upon Him their sins, that He may expiate them." In opposition to those who translate: "Heboretheir iniquities," (the Future might, in that case, he accounted for from the Prophet's viewing the whole transaction as present), evenGeseniushas remarked that the preceding and subsequent Futures all refer to the state of glorification. Even the parallelism withיצדיקshows that we must translate as the LXX. do:καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτω̂ν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει. Moreover, the subject of discourse in the whole verse is not theacquiringof the righteousness, which was done in the state of humiliation, but thecommunicationof it, as the subjective condition of which the knowledge of the Servant of God was mentioned in the preceding clause.In the case of every one who, after the exaltation of the Servant of God, fulfils this condition, He takes upon Himself their sins,i.e., He causes His vicarious suffering to be imputed to them, and grants them pardon. The expression: "He shall bear their iniquities" is, in point of fact, identical with: "He shalljustifythem." The Servant of God has borne the sin once for all; by the power of His substitution, effected by the shedding of His blood, He takes upon himself the sins of every individual whoknowsHim. The "taking away" is implied inוסבלin so far only, as it is done bybearing. It was only because he was misled by his rationalistic tendencies, thatGeseniusexplains: "And He lightens the burden of their sins,i.e., by His doctrine He shall correct them, and thereby procure to them pardon." By such an explanation he contradicts himself, inasmuch as, in ver. 4, he referred the bearing of the diseases and pains to the vicarious satisfaction. It cannot, in any way, be said of the Teacher, that he takes upon himself iniquities.