Isaiah 53:1-12 (2)

Isaiah 53:1-12 (2)

8. From prison and judgment. There are various ways in which this passage is expounded. Some think that the Prophet continues the argument which he had already begun to treat, namely, that Christ was smitten by the hand of God, and afflicted, on account of our sins. The Greek translators render it, ἐν τὣ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ᾔρθη. “In his humiliation his judgment was taken away.” Others, “He was taken away without delay.” Others explain it, “He was taken away to the cross;“ that is, as soon as Christ was seized, he was dragged to “judgment.” I rather agree with those who think that the Prophet, after having spoken of death, passes to the glory of the resurrection. He intended to meet the thoughts by which the minds of many persons might have been troubled and distressed; for when we see nothing but wounds and shame, we are struck with amazement, because human nature shrinks from such a spectacle.

The Prophet therefore declares that he was taken away; that is, that he was rescued “from prison and judgment” or condemnation, and afterwards was exalted to the highest rank of honor; that no one might think that he was overwhelmed or swallowed up by that terrible and shameful kind of death. For, undoubtedly, he was victorious even in the midst of death, and triumphed over his enemies; and he was so judged that now he has been appointed to be judge of all, as was publicly manifested by his resurrection. (Acts 10:42) The same order is followed by the Prophet as by Paul, who, after having declared that Christ was abased even to the cross, adds that, on this account, he was exalted to the very highest honor, and that there was given him a: name to which all things both in heaven and in earth must render obedience and bend the knee. (Philippians 2:9)

Who shall relate his generation? This exclamation has been stretched and (I may say) tortured into various meanings. The ancients abused this passage in reasoning against the Arians, when they wished to prove by it Christ’s eternal generation. But they ought to have been satisfied with clearer testimonies of Scripture, that they might not expose themselves to the mockery of heretics, who sometimes take occasion from this to become more obstinate; for it might easily have been objected that the Prophet was not thinking about that subject. Chrysostom views it as relating to the human nature of Christ, that he was miraculously, and not by ordinary generation, conceived in the womb of the virgin; but that is a wide departure from the Prophet’s meaning. Others think that Isaiah kindles into rage against the men of that age who crucified Christ. Others refer it to the posterity which should be born; namely, that Christ’s posterity will be numerous though he die.

But, as דור (dor) signifies “age” or “duration,” I have no doubt that he speaks of the “age” of Christ, and that his meaning is, that Christ, though almost overwhelmed by sicknesses, shall not only be taken from them, but that even his age shall be permanent and eternal; or, in other words, that he shall be unlike those who are indeed rescued from death, but shall afterwards die; for Christ rose from the dead, to live for ever, and, as Paul says, “cannot now die; death shall no longer have dominion over him.” (Romans 6:9) Yet let us remember that the Prophet does not speak of Christ’s person alone, but includes the whole body of the Church, which ought never to be separated from him. We have therefore a striking proof of the perpetuity of the Church. As Christ liveth for ever, so he will not permit his kingdom to perish. The same immortality shall at length be bestowed on each of the members.

For he was cut off. This might indeed, at first sight, appear to be absurd, that the death of Christ is the cause and source of our life; but, because he bore the punishment of our sins, we ought therefore to apply to ourselves all the shame that appears in the cross. Yet in Christ the wonderful love of God shines forth, which renders his glory visible to us; so that we ought to be excited to rapturous admiration.

For the transgression of my people. He again repeats that the wound was inflicted on him “for the sins of the people;“ and the object is, that we may diligently consider that it was for our sake, and not for his own, that he suffered; for he bore the punishment which we must have endured, if he had not offered this atonement. We ought to perceive in ourselves that guilt of which he bore the accusation and punishment, having offered himself in our name to the Father, that by his condemnation we may be set free.

Note 51. “Au pere celeste.” “To the heavenly Father.”

9. And he laid open to wicked men his grave. Jerome renders it, “And he gave wicked men for burial;” as if the Prophet spake of the punishment by which the Lord took vengeance for the sin of wicked men, who crucified Christ. But he rather speaks of the death of Christ, and of the fruit of it, and says nothing about that revenge. Others think that the particle את (eth) denotes comparison, in the same manner as the particle כ (caph). “He gave his grave as of wicked men.” Others interpret את (eth) to mean with, and explain “the rich man” to be Joseph of Arimathea, in whose sepulcher Christ was buried. (Matthew 27:60; John 19:38) But such an interpretation is too unnatural. I rather think that the real meaning is, that God the Father delivered Christ into the hands of wicked men.

And to the rich man his death. I consider the singular עשיר (gnashir,) “the rich man,” to be put for the plural עשרים (gnashirim), as is frequently done by Hebrew writers. I see no reason why Oecolampadius rendered it “high places.” By “rich men” he means “violent men;” for men grow haughty and disdainful on account of their riches, and abuse their wealth to savage cruelty. And thus by the terms “wicked men” and “rich men” the same thing, in my opinion, is denoted. He means, therefore, that Christ was exposed to the reproaches, and insolence, and lawless passions of wicked men. For, on the one hand, the Pharisees and priests (Matthew 26:66) rush upon him with unbridled rage and foul slander; on the other hand, Pilate, though well aware of his innocence, (Mark 15:14) condemns him in opposition to law and justice; and again, on another hand, the Roman soldiers, ready for every kind of barbarity, cruelly and wickedly execute the cruel and wicked sentence. (John 19:16) Who would not conclude that Christ was crushed and “buried” amidst those impious and bloody hands?

Note 52. “Je ne voy point de raison pourquoy OEcolampade a traduit, II a expose ses hants lieux au riche.” “I see no reason why OEcolampadius translated it, ‘He laid open his high places to the rich man.’”

I consider the word grave to be here used metaphorically, because wicked and violent men might be said to have overwhelmed him. If it be objected that Christ had an honorable burial, I reply, that burial was the commencement of a glorious resurrection; but at present the Prophet speaks of death, which is often denoted by “the grave.” I consider this, therefore, to be the real meaning, though I wish to leave every person free to form his own opinion.

Though he did no iniquity. על (gnal) signifies “because;” but sometimes it is used in the sense of “though,” as in this passage. Here the Prophet applauds the innocence of Christ, not only in order to defend him from slander, but to speak highly of the benefit of his death, that we may not think that he suffered by chance. Though innocent, he suffered by the decree of God; and therefore it was for our sake, and not for his own, that he suffered. He bore the punishment which was due to us.

Note 53. “על(gnal), for על אשר (gnal asher), 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 connection. 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 connection with its general application to that subject; to which we may add, that it can only find its way out in connection with a wish to get rid of that unwelcome application. At the same time it must be observed, that even if עשיר (gnashir) be taken in the sense of ‘wicked,’ although we lose the striking allusion to the burial of Christ in the sepulcher 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.” ­ Alexander

Neither was there deceit in his mouth. In two words he describes the perfect innocence of Christ; namely, that he never offended either in deed or in word. That this cannot be said of any mortal man is universally acknowledged, and hence it follows that it applies to Christ alone.

10. Yet Jehovah was pleased to bruise him. This illustrates more fully what I formerly stated in few words, that the Prophet, in asserting Christ’s innocence, aims at something more than to defend him from all reproach. The object therefore is, that we should consider the cause, in order to have experience of the effect; for God appoints nothing at random, and hence it follows that the cause of his death is lawful. We must also keep in view the contrast. In Christ there was no fault; why, then, was the Lord pleased that he should suffer? Because he stood in our room, and in no other way than by his death could the justice of God be satisfied.

When he shall have offered his soul as a sacrifice. אשם (asham) denotes both sin and the sacrifice which is offered for sin, and is often used in the latter sense in the Scriptures. (Exodus 29:14; Ezekiel 45:22) The sacrifice was offered in such a manner as to expiate sin by enduring its punishment and curse. This was expressed by the priests by means of the laying on of hands, as if they threw on the sacrifice the sins of the whole nation. (Exodus 29:15) And if a private individual offered a sacrifice, he also laid his hand upon it, as if he threw upon it his own sin. Our sins were thrown upon Christ in such a manner that he alone bore the curse.

Note 54. אשם (asham) primarily signifies a trespass or offense, and secondarily a trespass­offering. In the law of Moses it is technically used to designate a certain kind of sacrifice, nearly allied to the הטאת (hattath) or sin­offering, and yet very carefully distinguished from it, although etymologists 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 spedfie 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 dear, from a comparison of Romans 3:25; 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Hebrews 9:14 In the case last quoted, as in that before us, Christ is represented as offering himself to God.” ­ Alexander

Note 55. In both of the passages quoted by our author, the word is not אשם (asham) but הטאת (hattath), which, as appears from the preceding note, is closely analogous. ­ Ed

On this account Paul also calls him a “curse” or “execration:” “Christ hath redeemed us from the execration of the law, having been made an execration for us.” (Galatians 3:13) He likewise calls him “Sin;” “For him who knew no sin hath he made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21) And in another passage, “For what was impossible for the law, inasmuch as it was weak on account of the flesh, God did, by sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh liable to sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” (Romans 8:3, 4) What Paul meant by the words “curse” and “sin” in these passages is the same as what the Prophet meant by the word אשם, (asham.) In short, אשם (asham) is equivalent to the Latin word piaculum, an expiatory sacrifice.

Note 56. This Latin word, which bore the primary meaning of “an atonement for a transgression,” and the secondary meaning of “any wickedness that requires expiation,” is strikingly analogous to the Hebrew word in question, though the transference of the senses is exactly opposite. “Distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem, Virg. id est, Piacula commissa propter quae expiatio debetur.” ­ Serv. “Piaculum committere“ means literally to “commit a sacrifice,” that is, “to commit a crime for which a sacrifice is required.” ­ Ed.

Here we have a description of the benefit of Christ’s death, that by his sacrifice sins were expiated, and God was reconciled towards men; for such is the import of this word אשם, (asham.) Hence it follows that nowhere but in Christ is found expiation and satisfaction for sin. In order to understand this better, we must first know that we are guilty before God, so that we may be accursed and detestable in his presence. Now, if we wish to return to a state of favor with him, sin must be taken away. This cannot be accomplished by sacrifices contrived according to the fancy of men. Consequently, we must come to the death of Christ; for in no other way can satisfaction be given to God. In short, Isaiah teaches that sins cannot be pardoned in any other way than by betaking ourselves to the death of Christ. If any person think that this language is harsh and disrespectful to Christ, let him descend into himself, and, after a close examination, let him ponder how dreadful is the judgment of God, which could not be pacified but by this price; and thus the inestimable grace which shines forth in making Christ accursed will easily remove every ground of offense.

He shall see his seed. Isaiah means that the death of Christ not only can be no hinderance to his having a seed, but will be the cause of his having offspring; that is, because, by quickening the dead, he will procure a people for himself, whom he will afterwards multiply more and more; and there is no absurdity in giving the appellation of Christ’s seed to all believers, who are also brethren, because they are descended from Christ.

He shall prolong his days. To this clause some supply the relative אשר (asher,) “which:” “A seed which shall be long lived.” But I expound it in a more simple manner, “Christ shall not be hindered by his death from prolonging his days, that is, from living eternally.” Some persons, when departing from life, leave children, but children who shall survive them, and who shall live so as to obtain a name only when their fathers are dead. But Christ shall ell joy the society of his children; for he shall not die like other men, but shall obtain eternal life in himself and his children. Thus Isaiah declares that in the head and the members there shall be immortal life.

And the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. The word “hand” often denotes “ministry,” as the Lord proclaimed the law “by the hand of Moses.” (Numbers 36:13) Again, the Lord did this “by the hands of David;“ that is, he made use of David as his minister in that matter. (Ezra 3:10) So also “in the hand of Christ shall prosper the will of God;” that is, the Lord will cause the ministry of Christ to yield its fruit, that it may not be thought that he exposed himself fruitlessly to such terrible sufferings.

These few words contain a very rich doctrine, which every reader may draw from them; but we are satisfied with giving a simple exposition of the text. “Will” is taken in the same acceptation as before; for he makes use of the word חפף (chaphetz) by which he means a kind and generous disposition. Two views of God’s kindness are held up for our admiration in this passage; first, that he spared not his only­begotten Son, but delivered him for us, that he might deliver us from death; and secondly, that he does not suffer his death to be useless and unprofitable, but causes it to yield very abundant, fruit; for the death of Christ would be of no avail to us, if we did not experience its fruit and efficacy.

11. From the labor of his soul he shall see. Isaiah continues the same subject. He declares that Christ, after having suffered, shall obtain the fruit of his death in the salvation of men. When he says, “He shall see,” we must supply the words, “Fruit and Efficacy.” This is full of the sweetest consolation; for Isaiah could not have better expressed the infinite love of Christ toward us than by declaring that he takes the highest delight in our salvation, and that he rests in it as the fruit of his labors, as he who has obtained his wish rests in that which he most ardently desired; for no person can be said to be satisfied but he who has obtained what he wished so earnestly as to disregard everything else and be satisfied with this alone.

By his doctrine, or by the knowledge of him. He now points out the way and method by which we experience the power and efficacy of the death of Christ, and obtain the benefit of it. That method is “the knowledge of him.” I acknowledge that the word דעת (dagnath) may be taken either in an active or a passive sense, as denoting either “the knowledge of him” or “his knowledge.” In whichsoever of these senses it is taken, we shall easily understand the Prophet’s meaning; and the Jews will not be able to practice such impudent sophistry as to prevent us from extorting from them a reluctant acknowledgment of what is here asserted, that Christ. is the only teacher and author of righteousness.

Shall justify many. By the word “justify” he points out the effect of this teaching. Thus, men are not only taught righteousness in the school of Christ, but are actually justified. And this is the difference between the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of the Law; for although the Law shows what it is to be righteous, yet Paul affirms that it is impossible that righteousness should be obtained by it, and experience proves the same thing; for the Law is a mirror in which we behold our own unrighteousness. (Romans 3: 20; Galatians 2:16, 21, and 3:10, 11.) Now, the doctrine which Christ teaches, as to obtaining righteousness, is nothing else than “the knowledge of him;” and this is faith, when we embrace the benefit of his death and fully rely on him.

Philosophers have laid down many excellent precepts, which, as they imagine, contain righteousness; but they never could bestow it on any man; for who ever obtained by their rules the power of living uprightly? And it is of no advantage to know what is true righteousness, if we are destitute of it. To say nothing about philosophers, the Law itself, which contains the most perfect rule of life, could not (as we have said) bestow this; not that there was any defect in it, for Moses testified (Deuteronomy 30:19) that “he had set before them good and evil, life and death;” but that the corruption of our nature is such that the Law could not suffice for procuring righteousness. In like manner Paul teaches (Romans 8:3) that this weakness proceeds “from our flesh,” and not from the Law; for nature prompts us in another direction, and our lusts burst forth with greater violence, like wild and furious beasts, against the command of God. The consequence is, that “the law worketh wrath,” instead of righteousness. (Romans 4:15) The law therefore holds all men as convicted, and, after having made known their sin, renders men utterly inexcusable.

Note 57. “Mais ils n’ont jamais peu faire un seul hornroe juste.” “But they never could make one man righteous.”

We must therefore seek another way of righteousness, namely, in Christ, whom the law also pointed out as its end. (Romans 10:3.) “The righteousness of the law was of this nature: He who doeth these things shall live by them.” (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12.) But nobody has done them, and therefore another righteousness is necessary, which Paul also proves (Romans 10:8) by a quotation from Moses himself, “The word is nigh, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach.” (Deuteronomy 30:14) By this doctrine, therefore, we are justified; not by the bare and simple doctrine, but inasmuch as it exhibits the benefit of the death of Christ, by which atonement is made for our sins, and we are reconciled to God. (Romans 5:10.) For, if we embrace this benefit by faith, we are reckoned righteous before God.

For he shall bear their iniquities. The Prophet explains his meaning by pointing out what this doctrine contains; for these two clauses agree well: “he shall justify by his doctrine,” or “by the knowledge of him,” inasmuch as “he shall bear their iniquities.” Having been once made a sacrifice for us, he now invites us by the doctrine of the Gospel, to receive the fruit of his death; and thus the death of Christ is the substance of the doctrine, in order that he may justify us. To this saying of the Prophet Paul fully subscribes; for, after having taught that “Christ was an expiatory sacrifice for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” he at the same time adds, “We are ambassadors for Christ, and beseech you, be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20, 21)

My righteous servant. He shows that Christ justifies us, not only as he is God, but also as he is man; for in our flesh he procured righteousness for us. He does not say, “The Son,” but “My servant,” that we may not only view him as God, but may contemplate his human nature, in which he performed that obedience by which we are acquitted before God. The foundation of our salvation is this, that he offered himself as a sacrifice; and, in like manner, he himself declares,

“For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be holy.” (John 17:19)

12. Therefore will I divide to him a portion. Isaiah again declares what will be the result of the death of Christ. It was necessary that he should add this doctrine as to the victory which Christ obtained by his death; for what was formerly stated, that by his death we are reconciled to the Father, would not have sufficiently confirmed our hearts. Here he borrows a comparison from the ordinary form of a triumphal procession held by those who, after having obtained a signal victory, are commonly received and adorned with great pomp and splendor. Thus also Christ, as a valiant and illustrious general, triumphed over the enemies whom he had vanquished.

And he shall divide the spoil with the strong. This statement is the same as the preceding, and it is a customary repetition among Hebrew writers. Those whom he formerly called “great” he now calls mighty or “strong.” Those who translate רבים (rabbim) by the word “many,” torture, in my opinion, the Prophet’s meaning. In these two clauses there is only this difference, that in the former God testifies what he gave to Christ, and in the latter he adds that Christ enjoys that benefit, he enjoys it not on his own account, but on ours; for the fruit of this victory comes to us. For us Christ subdued death, the world, and the devil. In a word, the Prophet here applauds the victory which followed the death of Christ; for “although he was crucified through the weakness of the flesh, yet by the power of the Spirit” he rose from the dead, and triumphed over his enemies. (2 Corinthians 13:4) Such is the import of the metaphor of “Spoil,” which the Prophet used; for “he ascended on high, that he might lead captivity captive and give gifts to men.” (Psalm 68:18; Ephesians 4:8)