NOTWITHSTANDING these and other prophecies of the Messiah, he is not recognised when he appears, v. 1. He is not the object of desire and trust for whom the great mass of the people have been waiting, v. 2. Nay, his low condition, and especially his sufferings, make him rather an object of contempt, v. 3. But this humiliation and these sufferings are vicarious, not accidental or incurred by his own fault, vs. 4-6. Hence, though personally innocent, he is perfectly unresisting, v. 7. Even they for whom he suffers may mistake his person and his office, v. 8. His case presents the two extremes of righteous punishment and perfect innocence, v. 9. But the glorious fruit of these very sufferings will correct all errors, v. 10. He becomes a Saviour only by becoming a substitute, v. 11. Even after the work of expiation is completed and his glorious reward secured, the work of intercession will be still continued, v. 12.
1. Who hath believed our report 1 and the arm of Jehovah, to whom (or upon whom) has it been revealed? While most modern writers, as we have already seen, detach the three preceding verses and prefix them to this chapter, Hitzig goes to the opposite extreme of saying that the writer here begins afresh, without any visible connexion with the previous context. Ewald more reasonably makes this a direct continuation, but observes a change of tone, from that of joyous confidence to that of penitent confession, on the part of the believing Jews, in reference to their former incredulity. Martini, Jahn, and Rosenmiiller put these words into the mouth of the heathen, acknowledging their error with respect to the sufferings of Israel. But this hypothesis, besides being arbitrary in itself, and unsustained by any parallel case in which the heathen are thus introduced as speaking, requires a forced interpretation to be put upon the language of the verse. Thus Rosenmiiller understands the first clause as meaning, ‘who of us would have believed this, had we merely heard instead of seeing it?’ And the last clause in like manner, ‘unto whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed as unto us?’ Gesenius and the later writers much more naturally understand the Prophet as speaking in his own name or in that of the prophets generally, not his predecessors or contemporaries merely, as Jerome and Van Der Palm assume without necessity. They also for the most part retain the strict sense of the preterite, which Hengstenberg and Hendewerk exchange for the present form, believes and is revealed.—nsttatiS is properly the passive participle of the verb to hear, the feminine being used like the neuter to denote what is heard, and may therefore be applied to rumour, to instruction, or to speech in general. (See ch. 28: 9, 19. Jer. 49: 14, and compare the Greek «xo^, Rom. 10:16. Gal. 3: 2. 1 Thess. 2:13.) Hitzig supposes that the word was here suggested by the isatg of the preceding verse. The restricted applications of the term, by Gesenius and Maurer to the news of the deliverance from Babylon, and by Hendewerk to the preceding strophe (ch. 52: 7-15), are alike gratuitous. Martini, Jahn, and Rosenmiiller, in accordance with their notion that the heathen are here speaking, understand the whole phrase passively, as meaning that which we have heard;’ and the same sense, on a wholly different hypothesis, is also given by Umbreit and Knobel, the last of whom applies the term to that which the Prophet is described as having heard in ch. 50: 4, 5. Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others understand it actively, as meaning, that which we have published in the hearing of others; which agrees well with the context and with Paul’s quotation (Rom. 10: 16), and is perfectly consistent with the strict sense of the Hebrew words, though not sustained by any definite usage, as Henderson alleges. That the words might have either of these senses in different connexions, may be gathered from the fact, that in 2 Sam. 4: 4, the qualifying noun denotes neither the author nor the recipient of the declaration, but its subject, so that in itself the phrase is quite indefinite. Some understand the interrogation in this clause as implying an absolute negation, which, accord ing to Hendewerk, includes the very Servant of Jehovah himself, who is described as blind and deaf in ch. 42: 19. But there, as we have seen, the prominent idea in the Servant of Jehovah is the Body, whereas here it is the Head. According to Hengstenberg the implied negation is not absolute, but simply expressive of wonder at the paucity of true believers in the world at large, but more especially among the Jews, to whom, with Van Der Palm, he understands the passage as specifically referring, because it had already been predicted, in the foregoing verse, that the heathen would believe. There is no inconsistency, however, even if we take the words before us in their widest sense; because, as Calvin has observed, the Prophet interrupts his prediction of success and triumph to bewail the dis couragements and disappointments which should intervene. The same thing had already been predicted indirectly in ch. 42: 24, and similar objections to his own assurances occur in ch. 49: 14, 24. The last clause is understood by Knobel as assigning a reason for the unbelief described in the first: they did not believe what they heard, because they did not see the arm of Jehovah visibly revealed. But most interpreters regard the two as parallel expressions of the same idea,—to believe what God said, and to see his arm revealed, being really identical. The advent of Christ, his miracles, his resurrection, his ascension, are among the clearest proofs of the divine omnipotence and of its real exercise, a skeptical misgiving as to which is involved in a refusal to believe. The arm as the seat of active strength is often put for strength itself (2 Chr. 32: 8. Job 22:8. Jer. 17: 5), and especially for the power of Jehovah (ch. 59: 16. Deut. 4: 34. 5: 15. 26: 8). In this sense it is commonly regarded as convertible with hand; but Hendewerk maintains that the latter only is applied to a gracious exercise of power (ch. 41:20. 45: 11, 12. 48: 13. 49:2, 22. 59: 1), while the former always has respect to war (ch. 40: 10. 52: 10. 63:5. 59: 16). He therefore gives the clause exclusive reference to what God had already done for Cyrus and designed to do for Israel, by making them victorious over all their enemies. But this distinction, though ingenious, is fallacious; because it confounds the usual application of a figure with its essential meaning, and entirely overlooks the many cases in which hand has reference to the divine vengeance (e. g. ch. 9:11, 20. 10:4. 19: 16. 25: 10. 256 CH AFTER LIII. 51: 17), while in some of the cases where the arm is mentioned (ch. 40: 12 and 51:5) it is hard to discover any reference to war. But the true solution of the difficulty is, that the manifestation of God’s justice is commonly described by Isaiah as including at the same time the deliverance of his friends and the destruction of his enemies. (See above, ch. 51: 5.)—The use of b? in the last clause is explained by some as a mere variation of the usual construction with bx or b; but Hengstenberg regards it as implying that the revelation comes from above, and Hitzig supposes an allusion to the elevation of the arm itself.
2. And he came up like the tender plant, before him, and like the root from a dry ground • he had no form nor comeliness, and we shall see him, and no sight that we should desire it. There is something almost ludicrous to modern readers in Vitringa’s pedantic notion that the Prophet puts these words into the mouth of a chorus of converted Jews. There is also something too artificial in Van Der Palm’s dramatic distribution of the passage, according to which the Prophet’s censure of the unbelief of the Jews (v. 1) is followed by their justification of it (vs. 2, 3), while the first clause of the fourth verse contains the Prophet’s answer and the last the rejoinder of the Jews, after which the Prophet speaks again without any further interruption. Most of the modern writers agree with Gesenius in making all that follows the first verse the language of the people acknow ledging their own incredulity with respect to the Messiah, and assigning as its cause their carnal expectations of a temporal prince, and their ignorance of the very end for which he came. The hypothesis of Rosenraiiller and others who regard this as the language of the heathen, acknowledging their error with respect to Israel, has been already mentioned. (See above, on ch. 52:13.) A novel and ingenious but untenable hypothesis has been more recently proposed by Hendewerk, viz. that the speakers are the elder race of exiles in Babylon, by whose transgressions that infliction was occasioned, and that the sufferer here described is the younger race, for whose sake it was terminated, just as in the case of the fathers and children who came out of Egypt.—The i at the beginning of this verse is not causative but narrative, determining the past sense of the future form and connecting the sentence, either with ch. 52: 14 or 15, or, which is the simplest and most natural construction, with the verse immediately preceding, which, although interrogative in form, involves an affirmation, namely, that the people were incredulous, which general statement is here amplified.—The common version of b?5] as a future proper (he shall grow up) is utterly precluded by the Vav conversive, and gratuitously violates the uniformity of the description, which presents the humiliation of Messiah as already past.— is properly a suckling, but is here used precisely like the cognate English word sucker, by which Lowth translates it. On the meaning of ttS-nto, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 228.— Out of a dry ground implies a feeble, sickly growth, and as its consequence a mean appearance. The dry ground, according to Alexander Morus, is Bethlehem, which he describes, on the authority of Strabo, as a barren spot. Along with this may be recorded the opinion of Eusebius and other Fathers, that the dry ground was the Virgin Mary; of which Calvin might well say, extra rem loquuntur. Out of a dry ground and the parallel expression (before him} may be con sidered as qualifying both the nouns, and separated only for the sake of the rhythmical arrangement of the sentence. Before him is translated by Henderson before them, and by Lowth in their sight, in accordance with the explanation of J. H. Michaelis, who regards it as descriptive of the popular misapprehension and contempt of Christ. Most writers take it strictly as a singular, referring to Jehovah, and analogous in meaning to those words of Peter, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious (1 Pet. 2: 4). It is well observed by Henderson, however, that it was not in the sight of God that the Messiah was a root out of a dry ground, but in that of the people.—He had not, literally, there was not to him, the only form in which that idea can be expressed in Hebrew.—Form is here put for beautiful or handsome form; as in 1 Sam. 16: 18, David is called a man of form, i e a comely person. The two nouns here used are combined in literal description elsewhere (e. g. Gen. 29: 17. 1 Sam. 25: 31), and in this very passage (see above, ch. 52:13). They denote in this case, not mere personal appearance, but the whole state of humiliation, and as Calvin says are to be understood de toto regno cujus nulla in oculis hominum forma, nuttus decor, nulla magnificentia fidt.—The modern writers generally disreo-ard the masoretic interpunction of this sentence, and connect *!w:i with the first clause, as a parallel to irr^n:1]. The meaning then is, no form or beauty that we should look at him, no appearance that we should desire him. This is precisely the construction adopted by Symmachus, iva fftfco^, iva em&vw&wuEr. But as this relation of the clauses is too obvious to have escaped the masoretic critics, it is reasonable to conclude that they were influenced in setting it aside by high traditional authority. There is besides a difficulty, if it be retained, in explaining the use of the verb 1-120, which means to view with pleasure only when followed by the preposition a, and the sense that we should loolc at him does not seem entirely adequate. If we adhere to the masoretic interpunction, there is no need of paraphrasing finx’ns1} with the English Version (when we shall see him); it is better to give it its direct and proper sense (and we shall see him). But as both these versions suppose a transition from the form of narrative to that of prophecy, there is the same objection to them as to the common version of On the whole, therefore, leaving out of view the authority of the 17 Masorah, the usual construction is the most satisfactory.—In what sense the prophets thus grew up like suckers from a dry soil, or the Jewish nation while in exile, or the pious portion of them, or the younger race, it is as difficult to understand, or even to conceive, as it is easy to recognise this trait of the prophetic picture in the humiliation of our Saviour, and the general contempt to which it exposed him.
3. Despised and forsaken of men (or ceasing from among men), a man of sorrows and acquainted with sickness, and like one hiding the face from him (or us), despised, and we esteemed him not. From the general description of his humiliation, the Prophet now passes to a more particular account of his sufferings.—s’ln, from Vnn to cease, is by some taken in a passive and by others in an active sense. On the former supposition, the whole phrase may mean rejected of men (English Version), forsaken by men, . e. by his friends, as in Job 19: 14 (Gesenius), or avoided by men, as an object of abhorrence (Hitzig, Ewald, Hendewerk). On the other sup position, it is explained by Hengstenberg as meaning one who ceases frurn amon«T men, i. e. ceases to be a man or to be so considered. This is probably the sense intended by the Septuagint version, and is certainly the one expressed by Aben Ezra (o’t:f> 0» 3Crt>i ^7p;. The version of Symmachus (&.uwios w”fywr), with which the Vulgate and Peshito substantially agree, seems to rest upon the same construction of Vin thut is proposed by Martini, who regards both this word and r.TS? as adjectives deriving a superlative import from the plural following, the most despised and forsaken of men. (Compare Ps. 22: 7. Prov. 15: 20.) But for this sense there is no authority in usage.—The phrase man of sorrows seems to mean one \whose afflictions are his chief characteristic, perhaps with an allusion to their number in the plural form. (Compare Prov. 29: 1.) Symmachus translates the phrase yvwaros voo®, which is generally understood to mean, known or distinguished by disease; and this sense is retained by J. D. Michaelis, Paulus, Jahn, Rosenmuller, Gesenius in his Commentary, Maurer. and Umbreit. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshito, give the first word the sense of knowing (*/te, sciens}, from which Lowth infers that they read y^ • But Hengstenberg and others have shown that the passive participle is itself employed like acquainted in English, so that there is no need of supposing any difference of text, or even that the passive form was used in an active sense. (Compare Song Sol. 3: 8. Ps. 112: 7. 103: 14.) Gesenius in his Commentary characterizes this interpretation of the word as “ false,” but quietly adopts it in the second edition of his German Version.—In the next phrase -.noa is by some regarded as a participle and by others as a noun. On the former supposition, the entire phrase is explained by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Targum, Aquila, Jarchi, Lowth, Koppe, De Wette, and others, as meaning, he was like one hiding his face from us, with allusion to the veiling of the face by lepers (Lev. 13: 45) or by mourners (2 Sam. 15: 30. Ez. 14: 17), or as an expression of shame (Micah 3:7). To this Gesenius objects in his Commentary, that the whole description has respect not to the conduct of the sufferer but to his appearance in the sight of others. In the Thesaurus, he adopts this very explanation, without noticing his own objection, though he still avows a preference for his former construction, notwithstanding the harshness with which it may be charged, viz. like one from whom one hides the face. J. H. Mich a el is and Rosenmiiller give the Hiphil, as usual, a causative sense, like one making (others) hide the face from him. But in every other case vnorr simply means to hide, and occurs repeatedly in that sense with this very noun c^s. It may also be objected to the explanation of the word as a participle, that analogy and usage would require the form “PFibia, which is actually found in four manuscripts, but no doubt as a conjectural emendation. Kimchi, Martini, and Hengstenberg, take “IPJOE as an abstract noun, meaning properly concealment, and explain the whole phrase, like conceal ment of the face from it, i. e. like that which causes men to hide the face from it. But although the hiding of the face is elsewhere mentioned as a natural expression of displeasure, shame, and sorrow, it does not occur as an expression of contemptuous astonishment, and seems to be a forced and exaggerated method of expressing such a feeling. It may therefore be better on the whole to combine the explanation of’no^ as a noun with that of 13BB as a pronoun of the first person, and to understand the whole phrase as meaning, like a hiding of the face from us, i. e. as if he hid his face from us in shame and sorrow; notwithstanding the objection of Gesenius, that the subject of description is not the demeanour of the sufferer, which has not only been abandoned by himself (although renewed by Hengstenberg), but is in itself unreasonable, since the writer’s purpose was not to observe the unities of rhetoric, but to make a strong impression of the voluntary humiliation of the Messiah, which could not be more effectively secured by any single stroke than by the one before us, thus explained.—Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and Umbreit follow the Peshito in making ntaa the first person plural (we despised him); and Martini supplies the want of a suffix by read ing xb iriT23 instead of «bi nt-a. But the anomalous use of the future creates a difficulty not to be gratuitously introduced; and the analogy of FITS: in the first clause makes it much more natural to take this as a participle like wise, with the other ancient versions, and with Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel.—Here again the reader is invited to compare the forced application of this verse to the Prophets, to all Israel, to the pious Jews, or to the younger race of exiles, with the old interpretation of it as a prophecy of Christ’s humiliation.
4. Surely our sicknesses he bore, and our griefs he carried; and we thought him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. “(SK is determined, both by its etymology and usage, to be a particle of affirmation. The sense of but, assumed by most interpreters, is rather what they think the writer should have said than what he has said. The comparatively rare use of adversative particles in Hebrew has already been mentioned as a striking idiomatic peculiarity. The metaphor is that of a burden, and the meaning of the whole verse, that they had misunderstood the very end for which Messiah was to come. Sickness, as in the verse preceding, is a representative expression for all suffering. Our griefs, those which we must otherwise have suffered, and that justly. The plural ‘:^n is defectively written for la^n, which last appears, however, in eleven manuscripts and eighteen editions; while on the other hand twenty manuscripts and two editions have the defective form ^axa^a, which cannot be singular, because the pronoun which refers to it is plural. Henderson makes his English version more expressive of the writer’s main drift by employing the idiomatic form, it was our griefs he bare, it was our sorrows he carried.—The explanation of fctoj as meaning merely took away, is contradicted by the context and especially by the parallel phrase t^&, which can only mean he bore or carried them. It is alleged indeed that one is never said to bear the sins of another, and some go so far as to explain these words as meaning that he bore with them patiently, while others understand the sense to be that he shared in the sufferings of others. But the terms are evidently drawn from the Mosaic law of sacrifice, a prominent feature in which is the substitution of the victim for the actual offender, so that the former bears the sins of the latter, and the latter, in default of such an expiation, is said to bear his own sin. (See Lev. 5:1, 17. 17:16. 24:15. Num. 9:13. 14:33. Ex. 23: 38. Lev. 10: 17. 16: 22.) For the use of ~D in the same vicarious sense, see Lam. 5:7. (Compare Ez. 18: 19.) The Septuagint in the case before us has qitQst, Symmachus ar&afie. The application of these words by Matthew (8: 17) to the removal of bodily diseases cannot involve a denial of the doctrine of vicarious atonement, which is clearly recognised in Matt. 20: 28; nor is it an exposition of the passage quoted in its full sense, but, as Calvin well explains it, an intimation that the prediction had begun to be fulfilled, because already its effects were visible, the Scriptures always representing sorrow as the fruit of sin.—Stricken, as in some other cases, has the pregnant sense of stricken from above, as Noyes expresses it, or smitten of God, as it is fully expressed in the next clause. (See Gen. 12: 17. 2 Kings 15:5. 1 Sam. 6: 9.) There is no need, therefore, of supposing an ellipsis. The other verb!”!33 was particularly applied to the infliction of disease (Num. 14: 12. Deut. 28: 22), especially the leprosy; which led Jerome to give swa the specific sense leprous. Hence the old CHAPTER LI IF. 261 Jewish notion that the Messiah was to be a leper. Theodoret more correctly uses the generic term pepaan.ytQnwo<;, equivalent to the ntyyets ftsov (tdauyt of jEschylus.—Instead of the construct form M?^, some manuscripts exhibit the absolute ns-a; which is preferred by Bellarmine and some others, who explain the whole phrase as meaning a stricken God, and use it as a proof of the divinity of Christ.—By stricken, smitten, and afflicted, we are of course not to understand stricken, smitten, and afflicted for his own sins, or merely stricken, smitten, and afflicted, without any deeper cause or higher purpose than in other cases of severe suffering. It is scarcely necessary to suppose a reference to the notion that great suffering was a proof of great iniquity. (Compare Luke 13:1. John 9: 2.)—In order to reconcile this verse with their hypotheses, Knobel and Hendewerk are under the necessity of proving that the pious Jews or younger race of exiles suffered more in the captivity than any others, which they do with great ease by applying thus all the descriptions of maltreatment which occur throughout the Later Prophecies.
5. And he was pierced (or wounded) for our transgressions, bruised (or crushed) for our iniquities; the chastisement (or punishment) of our peace (was) upon him, and by his stripes we were healed. The translation of the particle at the beginning by whereas, yea, or the like, is a departure from the Hebrew idiom wholly unnecessary to the clearness of the passage, which is continued in the simple narrative or descriptive form. Aben Ezra’s application of the verse to the sufferings of the Jews in their present exile and dispersion, is worthy of a place by the side of Hendewerk’s assertion that the Prophet here speaks as one of the older race of captives in Babylon-, acknowledging the error of himself and his contemporaries with respect to the younger and better generation.—bbina is derived by Cocceius from ^in to writhe with pain, and translated excruciatus est; but the true deriva lion is no doubt the common one from bbn to perforate, transfix, or pierce with special reference to mortal wounds,—so that the derivative Vjn, though strictly meaning pierced or wounded, is constantly applied to persons slain by violence, and especially in battle. Hence the Peshito version of bVna (killed), although apparently inaccurate, is really in strict accordance with the Hebrew usage. Vitringa and Henderson suppose a particular allusion to the crucifixion. Hengstenberg explains the word more generally as a metaphorical expression for extreme suffering. This agrees well with the parallel expression, crushed or bruised, to which there is nothing literally corresponding in our Saviour’s passion; and if this must be taken as a figure for distress of mind or suffering in general, the other can be naturally under stood only in the same way. It is very possible, however, that there may be a secondary and implicit reference to the crucifixion, such as we have met with repeatedly before in cases where the direct and proper meaning of the words was more extensive.—As IWB is often applied elsewhere to cor rection by words, some explain it to mean here instruction, as to the means of obtaining peace with God. But the stronger sense of chastisement or punishment not only suits the context better, but is really the most consistent with the usage of the verbal root, and of the noun itself, in such cases as Job 5: 17. Prov. 22: 15. 23: 13, as well as with the subsequent expression on him, which is hardly reconcilable with the supposition of mere precept or example. Whether the word was intended at the same time, as Hengstenberg supposes, to suggest the idea of a warning to others, may be made a question. The chastisement of peace is not only that which tends to peace, but that by which peace is procured directly. It is not, to use the words of an extreme and zealous rationalist, a chastisement morally salutary for us, nor one which merely contributes to our safety, but, accord ing to the parallelism, one which has accomplished our salvation, and in this way, that it was inflicted not on us but on him, so that we came off safe and uninjured. (Hitzig.) The application of the phrase to Christ, without express quotation, is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament. (See Eph. 2: 14-17. Col. 1: 20, 21. Heb. 13:20, and compare Isaiah 9: 6. Mic. 6: 5. Zech. 1: 13.)—^~^. is properly a singular, denoting the tumour raised by scourging, here put collectively for stripes, and that for suffering in general, but probably with secondary reference to the literal infliction of this punishment upon the Saviour.—XQ^a is not a noun, as Henderson explains it, but a passive verb, here used impersonally, it was healed to us, the ia^ limiting the action to a specific object. It was healed is a general proposition; with respect to us is the specific limitation. The use of the b may be otherwise explained by supposing that the verb%has here the modified sense of healing was imparted, as in v. 11 * p’^ri means to impart righteousness or justification. Healing is a natural and common figure for relief from suffering considered as a wound or malady. (Compare ch. 6: 10. J9: 22. 30: 26. Jer. 8: 22. oO: 17. 2 Chron. 7: 14.) The preterite is not used merely to signify the certainty of the event, but because this effect is considered as inseparable from the procuring cause which had been just before described in the historical or narrative form as an event already past: when he was smitten we were thereby healed. It is therefore injurious to the strength as well as to the beauty of the sentence, to translate with Henderson, *that by his stripes we might be healed. The mere contingency thus stated is immeasurably less than the positive assertion that by his stripes we were healed. The same objection, in a less degree, applies to the common version, we are healed, which makes the statement too indefinite, and robs it of its peculiar historical form.—Above thirty manuscripts and as many editions have ^Tribd in the plural,—a form which does not occur elsewhere.—The hypothesis that this passage has exclusive reference to the Babylonish exile, becomes absolutely ludicrous when it requires us to understand the Prophet as here saying that the people were healed (i. e. restored to their own land) by the stripes of the prophets, or by those of the true believers, or that the old and wicked race were healed by the stripes of their more devout successors. This last hypothesis of Hendewerk’s, besides the weak points which it has in common with the others, involves two very improbable assumptions: first, that the distinction of good and bad was coincident with that of young and old among the exiles; and secondly, that this younger race was not only better than the older, but endured more suffering.
6. All we like sheep had gone astray, each to his own way we had turned, and Jehovah laid on him the iniquity of us all. This verse describes the occasion or rather the necessity of the sufferings mentioned in those before it. It was because men were wholly estranged from God, and an atonement was required for their reconciliation. All we does not mean all the Jews or all the heathen, but all men without exception. The common version, have gone astray, have turned, does not express the historical form of the original sufficiently, but rather means •we have done so up to the present time, whereas the prominent idea in the Prophet’s mind is that we had done so before Messiah suffered. Noyes’s version we were going astray is ambiguous, because it may imply nothing more than an incipient estrangement.—The figure of wandering or lost sheep is common in Scripture to denote alienation from God and the misery which is its necessary consequence. (See Ezek. 34: 5. Matth. 9: 36.) The entire comparison is probably that of sheep without a shepherd (1 Kings 22: 17. Zech. 10:2). The second clause is understood by Augusti as denoting selfishness and a defect of public spirit or benevolence; and this interpretation is admitted by Hengstenberg as correct if “ taken in a deeper sense,” viz. that union among men can only spring from their common union with God. But this idea, however just it may be in itself, is wholly out of place in a comparison with scattered sheep, whose running off in different directions does not spring from selfishness but from confusion, ignorance, and incapacity to choose the right path. A much better exposition of the figure, although still too limited, is that of Theodoret, who understands it to denote the vast variety of false religions, as exemplified by the different idols worshipped in Egypt, Phenicia, Scythia, and Greece, alike in nothing but the common error of departure from the true God. El xal didfpoQOi rrjg nku.vi]q ol TQOTTOI, ndvtsg opoicog iov orra Qeov xaza^sJiomoTSf.—The original expression is like the sheep (or collectively the flock) i. e. not sheep in general but the sheep that wander or that have no shepherd.—The idea of a shepherd, although not expressed, appears to have been present to the writer’s mind, not only in the first clause but the last, where the image meant to be presented is no doubt that of a shepherd laying down his life for the sheep. This may be fairly inferred not merely from the want of connexion which would otherwise exist between the clauses, and which can only be supplied in this way, nor even from the striking analogy of Zech. 13: 7 where the figure is again used, but chiefly from the application of the metaphor, with obvious though tacit reference to this part of Isaiah, in the New Testament to Christ’s laying down his life for his people, (See John 10: 11-16 and 1 Peter 2: 24, 25.)—The read ing of one manuscript, span for spaBrt, is probably an accidental variation. The meaning given to this verb in the margin of the English Bible (made to meet) is not sustained by etymology or usage, as the primitive verb sae does not mean simply to come together, but always denotes some degree of violent collision, either physical as when one body lights or strikes upon another, or moral, as when one person falls upon i. e. attacks another. The secondary senses of the verb are doubtful and of rare occurrence. (See above, on ch. 47: 3, and below, on ch. 64: 4.) Kimchi supposes the punishment of sin to be here represented as an enemy whom God permitted or impelled to fall upon,- assail, the sufferer. Vitringa and Henderson, with much more questionable taste, suppose the image to be that of a wild beast by which the flock is threatened, and from which it is delivered only by the interposition and vicarious exposure of the shepherd to its fury. Most interpreters appear to be agreed in giving it a more generic sense. The common version (laid upon him) is objectionable only because it is too weak, and suggests the idea of a mild and inoffensive gesture, whereas that conveyed by the Hebrew word is necessarily a violent one, viz. that of causing to strike or fall, which is faithfully expressed by Umbreit (liess fallen), still more closely by Ewald and De Wette (liess treffen), and cor rectly but less definitely by Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others (warf). Among the ancient versions Symmachus has xctTavrfaai inoiriGtv, and Jerome posuit in eo, which last, although it scarcely gives the full sense of the verb, retains that of the preposition, as denoting strictly in him, i. e. not merely on his head or on his body, but in_his___Soul, or rather in his person, as expressive of the whole man. The word “ji? does not of itself mean punish ment, but sin; which, however, is said to have been laid upon the Messiah, only in reference to its effects. If vicarious suffering can be described in words, it is so described in these two verses; so that the attempts to explain them as denoting mere forbearance or participation in the punishment of others, may be fairly regarded as desperate expedients to make the passage applicable to the imaginary persecutions of the prophets, or the pious Jews, or the younger race during the Babylonish exile. The amount of ingenuity expended on these sophisms only shows how artificial and devoid of solid basis the hypotheses must be which require to be thus supported.—With this and the foregoing verse compare Rom. 4: 25. 2 Cor. 5: 21. 1 Pet. 2: 22-25.
7. He was oppressed and he humbled himself, and he will not open his mouth—as a lamb to the slaughter is brought, and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb—and he will not open his mouth. Having explained the occasion of Messiah’s sufferings, the Prophet now describes his patient endurance of them. As toa$ is sometimes applied to the rigorous exaction of debts, De Dieu translates it here exactus est, Tremellius exigebatur pocna. Lowth has the same sense, but makes the verb impersonal, it was exacted and he was made answerable; but nss is not used like the Latin respondeo as a technical forensic term. Van Der Palm explains the first verb, he was demanded, i. e. by the people, to be crucified; but vx does not mean to demand in general, its primary meaning is to urge or press. (See ch. 3: 5, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 43.) The general voice of the interpreters is strongly in favour of the old translation, he was oppressed or persecuted.— The next phrase has been usually understood as a simple repetition of the same idea in other words. Thus the English Version renders it, he was oppressed and he was afflicted. Besides the tautology of this translation (which would prove nothing by itself), it fails to represent the form of the original, in which the pronoun fc«n is introduced before the second verb, and according to usage must be regarded as emphatic. Martini’s proposition to transpose the particle, so as to read nasi1) x^n teas, is merely an ingenious expedient to evade a difficulty of construction. Gesenius gives «sifTi the sense of although, and explains the whole as meaning that he was oppressed although before afflicted, and the same interpretation is adopted by Umbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel. There does not seem to be much force in Hengstenberg’s objection, that nys as well as toM is applied to severe suffering. Gesenius’s interpretation would be no less admissible on the supposition that the verbs are perfectly synonymous, the distinction lying not in the verbs themselves, but in the ohnehin which he supplies. The true objection is that he does supply it, arbitrarily referring the two verbs to different points of time, and also that the meaning which he gives wrn is forced and foreign from Hebrew usage. The same objection lies against Hitzig’s construction of the clause, he was oppressed, and although persecuted opened not his mouth, which moreover omits in translation not only the first Vav but the second. Ewald explains it thus: he was persecuted although he humbled himself. The same reflexive meaning had been given to raw by Koppe, Jahn, and others, and appears to be implied in the paraphrastic versions of Symmachus (xat avzotf vnfaovae) and Jerome (quia ipse voluit). Supposing this sense of the verb to be admissible, by far the simplest and most natural construction is to give xisri its ordinary sense as a conjunction and emphatic pronoun, he was oppressed and he himself submitted to affliction, or allowed himself to be afflicted. There is then no tautology nor any arbitrary difference of tense assumed between the two verbs, while the whole sense is good in itself and in perfect agreement with the context. The same sense, substantially, is put upon the clause by Beck’s explanation of feia? as the first person plural (wir erwiesen uns tyrannisch); which is favoured by the obvious opposition of the first and third person in the preceding verse, and by the use of awn in this. All other writers seem agreed, however, that was is the third person singular of Niphal. All interpreters, perhaps without exception, render nnsp as a praeter or a present, which is no doubt substantially correct, as the whole passage is descriptive. It seems desirable, however, to retain, as far as possible, the characteristic form of the original, especially as it is very hard to account for the repeated use of the future here, if nothing more was intended than might have been expressed by the praeter. At all events, the strict sense of the form should be retained, if it can be done without injury to the sense, which is certainly the case here, as we have only to suppose that the writer suddenly but naturally changes his position from that of historical retrospection to that of actual participation in the passing scene, and, as if he saw the victim led to the slaughter, says, ’ he will not open his mouth.’ There is no need, therefore, of supposing with Hitzig that the i, though separated from the verb, exerts a conversive influence upon it. The repetition of the same words at the end, so far from being even a rhetorical defect, is highly graphic and impressive. In the intermediate clause, we may either suppose an ellipsis of the relative, equally common in Hebrew and in English (like a lamb which is led), or suppose the preposition to be used as a conjunction (as a lamb is led), without effect upon the meaning of the sentence. The T before the last clause is not the sign of the apodosis, nor need it be translated so, the form adopted in the Septuagint version (ovtmg oi>% avofysi TO atofia), for the purpose of showing that the words refer to the subject of the first clause, and not to the sheep or lamb, as Luther and Gesenius assume, in violation of the syntax (^^ being feminine) and the poetical structure of the sentence, which depends materially on the repetition of the same words in the same sense and application as before. Besides those places where Christ is called the Lamb of God (e. g. John 1: 29. 1 Peter 1: 18, 19. Acts 8: 32, 35), there seems to be reference to this description of his meek endurance in 1 Peter 2: 23.— It might seem almost incredible, if it were not merely one out of a thousand such examples, that Vitringa formally propounds the question, quando tonsus sit Christus Dominus? and gravely answers, when he was shorn of his prerogatives and rights by the Jewish Sanhedrim. As if there were no difference, or as if such a man as Vitringa could not see it, between saying he was silent and submissive like a sheep before its shearers, and saying he was silent and submissive before his shearers like a sheep.
8. From distress and from judgment he was taken; and in his gene ration who will think, that he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people, (as) a curse for them? Every clause of this verse has been made the subject of dispute among interpreters. The first question is, whether the particle at the beginning denotes the occasion or the cause, as all agree that it does before sros in the last clause, or whether it is to be taken in its ordinary sense of from. This is connected with another question, viz. whether taken means delivered, or taken up, or takejuuKay to execution, or taken out of life. It is also disputed whether ixs means imprisonment or oppression and distress in general, and also whether ES^A means judicial process, sentence, or punishment. From the combination oft| these various explanations have resulted several distinct interpretations of the whole clause. Thus the text of the English Version has, he was taken from prison and from judgment; the margin of the same, he was taken away by distress and judgment; Hengstenberg and others, he was taken (to execution) by an oppressive judgment. Most of the older writers understand these words as descriptive of his exaltation—from distress and judgment he was freed or taken up to heaven. So Jerome and J. H. Michaelis. Gesenius, Riickert, and Umbreit also understand it to mean that he was freed from his sufferings by death. To this interpretation Hengstenberg objects, that the account of the Messiah’s exaltation begins in v. 10, while the intervening verse still relates to the circumstances of his death; and also that the reference of n^b to a violent death is here determined by the parallel expression, ‘ he was cut off from the land of the living.’ He might have added that even in Gen. 5: 24 and 2 Kings 2:9, 10, the word is used in reference to a singular departure from the ordinary course of nature. Luzzatto and Henderson give *v the privative sense of without, and understand the clause to mean that he was taken off without restraint or authority. The same construction seems to have been anticipated by Zwingle, who paraphrases the expression thus, indicia causa citraque judicium.—In the next clause, the interpretation turns upon the question whether ^ means life, dwelling, posterity, or contemporaries, and the verb to think or speak. Luther^ Cal- 4 vin. and Vitringa understand the clause to mean, who can declare the length \ of his life hereafter? Kimchi and Hengstenberg explain it to mean, who can declare his {3posterity_for spiritual seed? To this it is objected that the verb requires a connective particle before its object, and that Christ is not called the father but the brother of his people, and that “ita has this sense 268 CH AFTER LIII.
only in the plural. Clericus supposes it to mean, who can worthily describe his course of life? But this sense of its is not sustained by usage. Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and others follow Storr in making iTn~nx an absolute nominative—as to his generation (i.e. his contemporaries), who considered it, or cared for it? To this construction Hengstenberg objects that PK seldom if ever denotes the subject of the verb, and also that nnib^ is then left without an object. Neither of these objections lies against Ewald’s modification of this same exposition, which makes PX a preposition, and continues the interrogation through the sentence—in (or among) his generation (i. e. his contemporaries), who considered that he was cut off from the land of the living, etc.? Hofmann’s extravagant interpretation of the clause as meaning, who cares for his dwelling, i.e. where he is? deserves no refutation.—*W3:, according to some writers, is employed in Ps. 88: 6 and Lain. 3: 54, in reference to a natural and quiet death; but Hengstenberg maintains that even there a violent departure is implied.—Paulus infers from the singular form •’SS, that Jehovah here begins to speak again; but Hengstenberg explains it as equivalent to us, and a similar use of the singular form by a plurality of speakers is exemplified in 1 Sam. 5: 10. Zech. 8: 2k—Of the last words i’a^ saa there are several interpretations. Aben Ezra and Abarbenel, followed by Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, apply them to the sufferer here described, as meaning, he was smitten, and infer from the use of the plural suffix that the subject of the chapter is collective. Others adopt the same sense and application of the words, but deny the inference, upon the ground that i’a, though properly a plural suffix, is not unfrequently used for a sin gular, as the very same form is in Ethiopic. This ground is also maintained by Ewald in his Grammar. Hengstenberg admits that the pronoun is here plural, but refers it to the people, and supplies a relative—for the transgression of my people who were smitten, literally to whom there was a stroke or punishment, i. e. due or appointed. Ewald, without supposing an ellipsis, renders it, a stroke for them, i. e. smitten in their place and for their benefit. Cocceius gives the same sense to the words, but applies them very differently as a description of the people, plaga ipsis adhaeret, i. e. impuri sunt. (See the use of sag in Ex. 11: 1.)—According to Hendewerk, the land of the living is the Holy Land, and the verse is descriptive of the Babylonish exile. < By a divine judgment was the people taken away, and yet who can declare its future increase? It was cut off from its own land, for the transgression of the fathers were the children smitten.’ It is not surprising that the writer who invented this interpretation should sneer at the Messianic exposition as extravagant and groundless. The reading mab, which appears to be implied in the Septuagint Version and is adopted by Houbigant and Lowth, is wholly without critical authority or intrinsic worth to recommend it.
9. And he gave with wicked (men) his grave, and with a rich (man) in his death; because (or although) he had done no violence, and no deceit (was) in his mouth. The second member of the first clause is thus trans lated by Martini: tumulum sepulchralem cum violentis; which supposes •nn’tea to be the plural of nsa, a height or high place, here put for a monumental mound or hillock. The same interpretation is approved by Kennicott and Jubb. But as the plural m’pa retains its first vowel when followed by a suffix or another noun (Deut. 32: 29. Mic. 3: 12), Ewald adopts the pointing i^ni’aa, which is found in three manuscripts; but it still remains impossible to prove from usage any such meaning of rrea. Thenius goes further and reads rn’pna. And all this for the sake of a more perfect parallelism, although the common text affords a perfectly good sense, viz. in his death, i. e. after it, as in Lev. 11:31. 1 Kings 12:31. Esther 2: 7, and the only difficulty is the one presented by the plural form, which is surely not so serious as to require its removal by an arbitrary change of text. It is not even necessary to explain it with Jarchi as denoting all kinds of death, or with Abarbenel as implying a collective not an individual subject. It is much more natural to assume with Hitzig that the suffix is assimilated to the apparent plural termination rn, or that it is simply a case of poetic variation, as in Ezek. 28:8, 10.—Rosenmiiller’s version is, he gave himself up to the wicked to be buried, or he left his burial to the wicked. But besides the forced construction here assumed, this explanation leaves “nntea unexplained, and does not agree with what is afterwards asserted, that he did no wrong etc.—Rabbi Jonah, as quoted in the Michlal Jophi, explains Tttte to mean a wicked man; and this explanation is adopt ed by Luther, Calvin, and Gesenius, who regard the word as suggesting the accessory idea of one who sets his heart upon his wealth, or puts his trust in it, or makes an unlawful use of it. This is so arbitrary, that Martini and some later writers abandon the Hebrew usage altogether, and derive the sense of wicked from the Arabic root J&.. But this is doubly untenable, first, because the Hebrew usage cannot be postponed to the Arabic analogy without extreme necessity, which does not here exist; and secondly, be cause the best authorities exhibit no such meaning of the Arabic word itself. Ewald, aware of this, and yet determined to obtain the same sense, effects his purpose with his usual boldness, by changing ‘•nizte into p1^?—a convenient word invented for the purpose. Beck, with scarcely less violence, explains it as an orthographical variation of “p”^ (ch. 49: 25). It may appear surprising that this forced imposition of a new and foreign meaning on a word so familiar should be thus insisted on. Luther and Calvin no doubt simply followed the rabbinical tradition; but the later writers have a deeper motive for pursuing a course which in other circumstances they would boldly charge upon the great Reformers’ ignorance of Hebrew. That motive is the wish to do away with the remarkable coincidence between the circumstances of our Saviour’s burial and the language of this verse, as it has commonly been understood since Cappellus. This interpretation, as expressed by Hengstenberg, makes the verse mean, that they appointed him his grave with the wicked, but that in his death he really reposed with a rich man, viz. Joseph of Arimathea, who is expressly so called, Matt. 27: 57. The indefinite construction of the verb, and the sense thus put upon it, are in perfect accordance with usage. (See e. g. Ps. 72:15. Eccl. 2:21. Gen. 15:18. Is. 55:4. Jer. 1:4.) Even Aben Ezra explains gave by adding, i. e. in intention. It is also possible to ‘make *ie8 the subject of the verb, but wholly unnecessary. Some refer it to Jehovah, arid suppose the sense to be that he appeared to assign him his grave with the wicked. Malefactors were either left unburied or disgraced by a promiscuous interment in an unclean place,—a usage explicitly assert ed by Josephus and Maimonides. As the Messiah was to die like a criminal, he might have expected to be buried like one; and his exemption from this posthumous dishonour was occasioned by a special providential interference. To the different interpretations which have now been given of this first clause, may be added two as curiosities. The first is that of Jerome, who makes nx the sign of the accusative, and thus translates the whole, dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte suo. The other that of Hofmann, they (my people) treated him (my servant) like a wealthy tyrant. —bs (for -ittix by) is properly a causative particle equivalent to for that or because; but most interpreters regard it as equivalent to although, which is more Agreeable to our idiom in this connexion.—Knobel observes, with great naivete, that the reference of this verse to the burial of Christ has found its way into the exposition of the passage in connexion with its general application to that subject; to which we may add, that it can only find its way out in connexion with a wish to get rid of that unwelcome application. At the same time it must be observed that even if “Pfcjy be taken in the sense of wicked, although we lose the striking allusion to the burial of Christ in the sepulchre of Joseph, the verse is still applicable to his burial, as the last clause then means, like the first, that they appointed him his grave with malefactors. Clericus and Kennicott propose to transpose “nap and miaa, because there seems to be an incongruity in saying that he made his grave with the wicked and was with the rich in his death, when accord ing to the history he died with the wicked and was buried with the rich. But this apparent difficulty rests upon a false interpretation both of 157 and •nntea. There is no need of following in detail the laborious attempt to reconcile this verse, even after some of its expressions have been wrested for the purpose, with the supposition that the subject of the prophecy is Israel in exile, and that the burial here spoken of is merely political and civil, as in ch. 25: 8. 26: 19.
10. And Jehovah was pleased to crush (or bruise) him, he put him to grief (or made him sick); if (or when) his soul shall make an offering for sin, he shall sec (his) seed, he shall prolong (his) days, and the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand shall prosper. Here begins the account of the Messiah’s exaltation. All the previous sufferings were to have an end in the erection of God’s kingdom upon earth. As the first clause is in contrast with the last of v. 9, it may be read, and (yet) Jehovah was pleased, i. e. notwithstanding the Messiah’s perfect innocence. The sense is not, as Barnes expresses it, that Jehovah was pleased with his being crushed, which might imply that he was crushed by another, but that Jehovah was pleased himself to crush or bruise him, since the verb is not a passive but an active one. Luzzatto makes to1? an adjective used as a noun, his crushed or afflicted one, contritus suus. Hitzig makes ^nrr a noun with the article, it pleased Jehovah that disease should crush him. But most interpreters appear to be agreed that the first is the Piel infinitive of xsn, and the last the Hiphil preterite of nbn, strictly meaning he made sick, but here used, like the cognate noun in vs. 3, 4, to denote distress or suffering in general. Martini and Gesenius make ixs^ the object of ^nn, it plcasefi Jehovah to make his wound sick, i. e. to aggravate his wounds or wound him sorely. This construction, although somewhat favoured by the analogy of Micah 6: 13 (compare Nah. 3: 19), does violence to both words and is inconsistent with their collocation in the sentence. Jahn accounts for the future form of D^t| by supplying ^£X*i, and regarding what follows as the words of Jehovah, who is afterwards spoken of, however, in the third person. But this is not unusual even in cases where Jehovah is undoubtedly the speaker. Hitzig and Hendewerk agree with De Dieu and other early writers in explaining D^ii’fi as the second person, which is also given in the text of the English Version (when thou shalt make etc.); but as Jehovah is no where else directly addressed in this whole context, the construction in the margin (when his soul shall make) is the one now commonly adopted. Hengstenberg in his Christology explains icaa as a mere periphrasis for &M-I; but he may be considered as retracting this opinion in his Commentary on Ps. 3: 3, where he denies that the expression is ever so employed. Vitringa under stands it here to signify that the oblation was a voluntary one. It seems more natural however to explain it as referring the oblation to the life itself, which was really the thing offered; just as the blood of Christ is said to cleanse from all sin (L John 1: 7), meaning that Christ cleanses by his blood i. e. his expiatory death.—am primarily signifies a trespass or offence, 272 CHAPTER LIU. and secondarily a trespass-offering. In the law of Moses it is technically used to designate a certain kind of sacrifice, nearly allied to the rxsn or sinoffering, and yet very carefully distinguished from it, although archaeologists have never yet been able to determine the precise distinction, and a learned modern rabbi, Samuel Luzzatto, expresses his conviction that they differed only in the mode of offering the blood. The word is here used not with specific reference to this kind of oblation, but as a generic term for expiatory sacrifice. The use of analogous expressions in the New Testament will be clear from a comparison of Rom. 3: 25. 8: 3. 2 Cor. 5: 21. 1 John 2:2. 4: 10. Heb. 9: 14. ‘In the case last quoted, as in that before us, Christ is represented as offering himself to God.—As the terms used to describe the atonement are borrowed from the ceremonial institutions of the old economy, so those employed in describing the reward of the Messiah’s sufferings are also drawn from theocratical associations. Hence the promise of long life and a numerous offspring, which of course are applicable only in a figurative spiritual sense. The Septuagint and Vulgate, followed by Lowth, connect the two successive members of the clause as forming only one promise (he shall see a seed which shall prolong their days). The separate construction is not only simpler but requisite in order to express the full sense of the promise, which was literally given and fulfilled to Job in both its parts (Job 42: 16), and in its spiritual sense is frequently applied to Christ (e. g. Heb. 7: 16, 25. Rev. 1: 18). The seed here mentioned is correctly identified by Hengstenberg and others with the mighty, whom he is described as sprinkling in ch. 52: 15, and as spoiling in v. 13 below, whom he is represented in v. 11 as justifying, in v. 5 as representing, in v. 12 as interceding for. They are called his seed, as they are elsewhere called the sons of God (Gen. 6: 2), as the disciples of the prophets were called their sons (1 Kings 2: 25), and as Christians are to this day in the east called the offspring or family of the Messiah.—r&x? does not refer to past time, as Martini explains it (felicissimc executus est), but to the future, into which the glorious reward of the Messiah is and must be considered as extending.
11. From the labour of his soul (or life) he shall see, he shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my servant (as) a righteous one give righteousness to many, and their iniquities he will bear^ In this verse Jehovah is again directly introduced as speaking. The “jo at the beginning is explained by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Maurer as a particle of time, after the labour of his soul, like the Latin ab itinere. Others explain it from, implying freedom or deliverance. Knobel makes it mean without, which yields the same sense. Most interpreters follow the Vulgate in making it denote the efficient or procuring cause: Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus. The English Version makes it partitive; but this detracts from the force of the expression, and implies that he should only see a portion of the fruit of his labours. The allusion to the pains of parturition, which some English writers find here, has no foundation in the Hebrew text, but only in the ambiguity of the common version, which here employs the old word travail not in its specific but its general sense of toil or labour. The Hebrew word includes the ideas of exertion and of suffering as its consequence. J. D. Michaelis understands the clause as meaning, ‘ from his labour he shall joy fully look up;’ but there is no sufficient authority for this interpretation of the verb, which simply means to see, and must be construed with an object either expressed or understood. This object is supposed by Kimchi to be good in general (ia sa^i aia nx^1); by Jerome seed, as in the foregoing verse; by Hengstenberg the whole blessing there promised. Abarbenel supposes the two parts of that promise to be specially referred to, ’ he shall see his seed, he shall be satisfied with days,’ a common scriptural expression. (Gen. 25: 8. 35: 29.)—sab means to be satisfied, not in the sense of being contented, but in that of being filled or abundantly supplied. It is applied to spiritual no less than to temporal enjoyments. (Ps. 17: 15. 123: 3. Jer. 31: 14.) Clericus and Hengstenberg suppose an allusion to the processes of agriculture and the abundant produce of the earth. Some interpreters regard this as a case of hendiadys. in which the one word sim ply qualifies the other: he shall see he shall be satisfied, i. e. he shall abundantly see or see to his heart’s content. Maurer adopts this construction, and moreover connects “insna with what goes before, and gives rtx^ the sense of seeing with delight: mirifice laetabitur sapientid sua. Martini has the same construction, but explains ‘inr1-! to mean the knowledge of God. i. e. piety or true religion. But as Jehovah is himself the speaker, Jahn refers the suffix to Messiah and gives the phrase a passive sense, che shall be satiated with the knowledge of himself,’ i. e. abundantly enjoy the happiness of being recognised by others as their highest benefactor. But this is neither a natural construction nor consistent with the accents. The explanation of n:n as meaning doctrine is entirely without foundation in usage. The only satisfactory construction is the passive one which makes the phrase mean by the knowledge of him upon the part of others j and this is determined by the whole connexion to mean practical experi-, mental knowledge, involving faith and a self-appropriation of the MessiaJ^’sV righteousness, the effect of which is then expressed in the following worgjjP—I Gesenius gives p^srt the sense of converting to the true religion, or turning to righteousness, as in Dan. 12: 3. But that justification in the strict forensic sense is meant, may be argued from the entire context, in which the Messiah appears not as a Prophet or a Teacher, but a Priest and a Sacrifice, and also from the parallel expression in this very verse, and their iniquities 18 274 CHAPTER LIU.
he will bear. The construction with b Cocceius, Hengstenberg, and Maurer explain, by giving to the verb the sense of bestowing or imparting righteousness, in which way other active verbs are construed elsewhere. (See for example ch. 14: 3. Gen. 45: 7. 2 Sam. 3: 30.) Another solution of the syntax is afforded by taking b in its strict sense as denoting general relation, and the verb as meaning to perform the act of justification, not in the general, but in reference to certain objects—he shall be a justifier with respect to many. In the next clause Lowth omits P*1^-? because it stands before the substantive, which he pronounces an absurd solecism. Gesenius supposes ihe adjective to be prefixed because it is peculiarly emphatic. Hengstenberg goes further and supposes it to be used as a noun, the righteous one, my servant. But as this would seem to require the article, it is perhaps better to explain p^s with Ewald, as a righteous person (als Gerechter), which idea Maurer thus expresses paraphrastically, for my servant is righteous. Martini’s explanation of the clause as meaning, the Saviour my servant shall save many, has met with little favour, even among those who adopt an analogous explanation of p*is and ii?^2? elsewhere. According to Beck the sense of the whole clause is, ‘ by his knowledge of God he shall justify himself or show himself righteous; righteous is my servant for many, i. e. for their benefit.’—All mistake and doubt as to the nature of the justification here intended, or of the healing mentioned in v. 6, or of the cleansing mentioned in ch. 52: 15, is precluded by the addition of the words, and he shall bear their iniquities. The introduction of the pronoun makes a virtual antithesis, suggesting the idea of exchange or mutual substitution. They shall receive his righteousness, and he shall bear their burdens. One part of the doctrine taught is well expressed by Jerome: et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit, quas illi portare non poterant, et quorum pondere opprimebantur. The whole is admirably paraphrased by Calvin: Christus justificat homines dando ipsis justitiam suam, et vicissim in se suscipit peccata ipsorum, ut ea eccpiet.—The preterite sense given to ^o1? by Martini and others is entirely arbitrary and rejected by the later Germans as forbidden by the futures which precede and follow, all referring to the state of exaltation. Gesenius, however, though he makes the expression future, extenuates it by explaining it to mean that he shall make their burden lighter by his doctrine and by promoting their moral improvement. But this is at once inconsistent with the context and with ^his own interpretation of the fourth verse, where he understands the similar ‘expressions as referring to vicarious atonement, while Hitzig is guilty of the same inconsistency, but in a reversed order, making this verse teach the doctrine and the other not.—In order to do justice to the theories which 1 represent this passage as a prophecy of the return from exile, it should here be mentioned that Maurer understands this verse as meaning that the pious Jews should not refuse to share the punishment incurred by their ungodlybrethren, and Luzzatto that they should endure with patience the maltreat ment and misconduct of the world around them. As for Hendewerk, he boldly denies that P1”^? is used in a forensic sense, or that bat^ means to bear in any other sense than that of the Latin phrase tollere morbum or dolores. Knobel sums up his exposition of the verse by saying that the many are without doubt the heathen who should be converted, and to whom the Jews sustained the same relation as a prophet or a priest to laymen.
V. 12. Therefore will I divide to him among the many, and with the strong shall he divide the spoil, in lieu of this that he bared unto death his soul, and with the transgressors was numbered, and he (himself) bare the sin of many, and for the transgressors he shall make intercession. The Septuagint and Vulgate make the many and the strong the very spoil to be divided (xkijQovofiqaei noMov$, dispertiam ei plurimos). The same construction is retained by Lowth, Martini, Rosenmiiller,,Hengstenberg, and others. It would scarcely be natural, however, even if both adjectives were preceded by the ambiguous particle rx, much less when the first has a before it, which occurs no where else as a connective of this verb with its object. It is better therefore to adopt the usual construction, sanctioned by Calvin, Gesenius, and Ewald, which supposes him to be described as equal to the greatest conquerors. If this is not enough, or if the sense is frigid, as Mar tini alleges, it is not the fault of the interpreter, who has no right to strengthen the expressions of his author by means of forced constructions. The simple meaning of the first clause is that he shall be triumphant, not that others shall be sharers in his victory, but that he shall be as gloriously successful in his enterprise as other victors ever were in theirs. Indeed the s#me sense may be thus obtained, for which the writers above mentioned have departed from the obvious construction, if, instead of making a and nx denote comparison, we understand them to denote locality, and to describe him as obtaining spoil not with but among the many and the strong, and thus securing as the fruits of victory not only their possessions but themselves.— Hengstenberg gives tpsn the sense of mighty, simply because that idea is expressed by the parallel term; which rather proves the contrary, as a synonymous parallelism would in this case be enfeebling, and the very same word is admitted to mean many by Hengstenberg himself in the last clause. —Abarbenel’s objection, that Christ never waged war or divided spoil, has been eagerly caught up and repeated by the rationalistic school of critics. But Hengstenberg has clearly shown that spiritual triumphs must be here intended, because no others could be represented as the fruit of voluntary humiliation and vicarious suffering, and because the same thing is described in the context as a sprinkling of the nations, as a bearing of their guilt, as their justification. The many and the strong of this verse are the nations and the kings of ch. 52: 15, the spiritual seed of v. 8 and 10 above. (Compare ch. 11: 10 and Ps. 2: 8.)—The last clause recapitulates the claims of the Messiah to this glorious reward. rn»n is commonly explained to mean poured out, with an allusion to the shedding of blood considered as the vehicle of life. (Gen. 9: 4. Lev. 17: 11.) Beck even goes so far as to say that the writer looks upon the soul itself as a material fluid running in the blood. Not only is this inference a forced one, but the premises from which it is deduced are doubtful; for it seems more accordant with the usage of the verb, and at the same time to afford a better sense, if we explain it to mean made bare or exposed to death. The assertion that mab would then be superfluous is refuted by the analogy of Judg. 5: 18.—The reflexive sense which Hengstenberg and others give to h$E3 (numbered himself or suffered himself to be numbered), though not absolutely necessary, is strongly recommended by the context, and the obvious consideration that his being numbered passively among them was not such a claim to subsequent reward as a voluntary acquiescence in their estimation.—The application of this clause to our Saviour’s crucifixion between thieves (Mark 15: 28) is justly said by Hengstenberg not to exhaust the whole sense of the prophecy. It rather points out one of those remarkable coincidences which were brought about by Providence between the prophecies and the circumstances of our Saviour’s passion.—”“^l does not mean he fell among sinners, i. e. he was reckoned one of them (Maurer), but, as in Jer. 36: 25, denotes intercession, not in the restricted sense of prayer for others, but in the wider one of meritorious and prevailing intervention, which is ascribed to Christ in the New Testament, not as a work already finished, like that of atonement, but as one still going on (Rom. 8: 34. Heb. 9: 24. 1 John 2:1), for which cause the Prophet here employs the future form. There is no ground, therefore, for explaining it as a descriptive present, or perverting it into a preterite, nor even for transforming K’W to a future likewise for the sake of uniformity. Because the Prophet speaks of the atonement as already past, and of the work of intercession as still future, it follows, not as some imagine that he meant to represent both as past or both as future, but on the contrary that he has said precisely what he meant to say, provided that we give his words their simple, obvious, and unforced meaning. The Nirfl does not mean and yet, whereas, or although, but is either designed to make the pronoun emphatic (he himself or he on his part), or, as Hengstenberg suggests, to show that the last two members of the clause are not dependent on the “«fi$ P’tttt. This last phrase does not simply mean because, but expresses more distinctly the idea of reward or compensation. The most specious objection to the old interpretation of this verse, as teaching the doctrine of vicarious atonement, is the one made by Luzzatto, who asserts that »iaa, when directly followed by a noun denoting sin, invariably means to forgive or pardon it, except in Lev. 10: 17, where it means to atone for it, but never to bear the sins of others, which can only be expressed by a Ktoa, as in Ezek. 18: 19, 20. In proof of his general assertion, he appeals to Gen. 50: 17. Ex. 10: 17. 32: 32. 34: 7. Ps. 32: 5. 85: 3. Job 7: 21, in all which cases it must be admitted that the sense which he alleges is the true one. It is no sufficient answer to this argument to say that the parallel expression (anbis> ^tp?) determines the meaning of the phrase in question; since all parallelisms are not synonymous, and no parallelism can prove any thing in opposition to a settled usage. But although the parallel phrase cannot change or even ascertain the sense of this, it does itself undoubtedly express the idea which the objector seeks to banish from the text; since no one can pretend to say that ^® means to pardon, and it matters not on which side of the parallel the disputed doctrine is expressed, if it only be expressed at all. Little or nothing would be therefore gained by proving that N’jn Nitta only means to pardon. But this is very far from being proved by the induction which Luzzatto has exhibited, and by which he has unintentionally put a weapon into the hands of his opponents while attempting to disarm them. How can this learned and ingenious Jew account for the fact, which he himself asserts, that the idea of forgiveness is expressed in Hebrew by the verb Kw5? The most plausible account which he could probably give is that tfitts Cleans to take away, and that to pardon is to take away sin. But let it be observed, in the first place, that the two ideas are by no means identical, and that to many, perhaps most minds, the phrase to take away sin suggests the idea, not of pardon properly so called, but of something preparatory to it; and what is this something but atonement? In the next place, the primary and proper meaning of Ntba is not to take away, but to take up, or to take upon one’s self; its most frequent secondary meaning is to take about or carry, and even in the cases where it means to take away, it means to take away by taking up and bearing: so that even if x^n 5CJ3 means to take away sin, it would necessarily suggest the idea of its being, in some sense, taken up and borne, as the means of its removal. In the third place, the only satisfactory solution of the question above stated is, that the usage, to which it relates, presupposes the doctrine, that the only way in which a holy God can take away sin is by bearing it; in other words he can forgive it only by providing an atonement for it. This alone enables him to be supremely just and yet a justifier, not of the innocent, but of the guilty. Thus the usage, which Luzzatto so triumphantly adduces to disprove the doctrine of atonement, is found, on deeper and more thorough scrutiny, itself to presuppose that very doctrine. But lastly, let it be observed that Luzzatto is compelled to grant that Ktoi may mean to bear the guilt of others as a substitute, but modestly asks us to believe that it has this sense only in one place (Ezek. 18: ^0), and even there only because followed by a a; as if that construction, which is perpetually interchanged with the direct one, could have more effect in that case, than the context and parallelism in the one before us. The only other aberration which it will be necessary here to notice, is the strange opinion, broached by Ewald, with his characteristic confidence and abstinence from proof, that this whole passage, from the thirteenth verse of the preceding chapter, is the work of an older writer than the Great Unknown to whom he ascribes the other chapters, and whom he supposes to have thrust it into the midst of his own composition, without any reason why it should stand any where, and still less why it should stand just in this place; since, according to Ewald’s own account, it has no direct connexion either with what goes before or follows. The arguments by which he undertakes to justify this wild hypothesis are such as we have long since learned to rate at their true value, such as the use and repetition of expressions and ideas which occur no where else, together with the vague metaphorical assertion, that the atmosphere of this piece is entirely different from that of the other chapters, always excepting ch. 56: 9 to 57: II, which (we may almost say, of course) is likewise an interpolation. It is strange that such an intellect as Ewald’s should have failed to perceive that all this is an ill-disguised confession of his own incapacity to trace the true connex ion in a difficult portion of an ancient writing, and proceeds upon the principle, which even he would hardly venture to propound in terms, that it is better to expunge a passage from the text than to acknowledge its obscurity or leave it unexplained. If it be true, as he asserts, that this is the only way in which the existing controversy as to the fifty-third chapter can be settled, it had better not be settled at all. It is worthy of remark that neither Ewald’s reasoning nor his authority appear to have made any con verts to this neoteric doctrine. With respect to the frequent repetitions which he charges on the passage, it may be added in conclusion, that so far from being rhetorical defects or indications of another author, they are used with an obvious design, viz. that of making it impossible for any ingenuity or learning to eliminate the doctrine of vicarious atonement from this passage, by presenting it so often and in forms so varied and yet still the same, that he who succeeds in expelling it from one place is compelled to meet it in another, as we have already seen to be the case in the comparison of vs. 4 and 11, as interpreted by Hitzig and Gesenius. Whether the dreaded inconvenience is more bravely met or more effectually remedied by making this incorrigible prophecy still older than the rest with which it stands connected, is a question which we leave to the decision of the reader.
