Chapter LI: 1-16 (2)

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._"