Bible Commentaries

V.—THE FIFTH DISCOURSE

Golgotha and Sheblimini [sit at my right hand.—Tr.]

Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12

The transition from Isaiah 52:12 to Isaiah 52:13 is abrupt only in outward appearance. The attentive reader will see that inwardly there has been due preparation for it. For it was said already, Isaiah 49:3-4, that the Servant of the Lord, by whom the Lord will glorify Himself, will be surprised by this success as the unexpected reward of His afflictions. It is said, moreover, Isaiah 49:5-6; Isaiah 49:8 sqq, that the restoration of Jerusalem will be accomplished by the Servant of the Lord. Also, Isaiah 50:1, it is said, that Israel’s sin was the ground of its repudiation. In the same chapter, ver 4 sqq, is described the readiness of the Servant of the Lord to endure the sufferings laid on Him. Our present section ( Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12; the erroneous division of chapters arose from supposing that Isaiah 52:13-15 continues, as the foregoing context, to speak of the people of Israel) shows us how these two particulars are inwardly connected: the sufferings that the Servant of Jehovah must bear, and which make Him appear as a refuse of mankind ( Isaiah 49:7) are nothing else than the atoning sufferings that He representatively takes on Himself, but from which He will issue as the high, glorious and mighty Ruler (comp. Isaiah 49:7 with Isaiah 52:13; Isaiah 52:15; Isaiah 53:12).

Chapters49–57 are like a wreath of glorious flowers intertwined with black ribbon, or like a song of triumph, through whose muffled tone there courses the melody of a dirge, yet so that gradually the mournful chords merge into the melody of the song of triumph. And at the same time the discourse of the Prophet is arranged with so much art that the mourning ribbon ties into a great bow exactly in the middle. For chap 53 forms the middle of the entire prophetic cycle of chaps40–66. It has four chapters of the second Ennead, and thirteen chapters of the second and first Enneads before it, and four chapters of the second Ennead and thirteen chapters of the second and third Enneads after it.

Who is the Servant of God, that forms the chief object of our prophecy? That we are not to think of Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jeremiah (Saadia, Grotius, Bunsen, K. A. Menzel, Stoats u. Relig. Gesch. der Kœnigr. Israel u. Juda, Breslau, 1853, p298 sq.), or even of Isaiah himself, hardly requires proof at the present day (comp. Gesenius Komm. p170 sqq.). Or need we pause to refute the view, that the whole Jewish people is the Servant of God, that therefore the speakers Isaiah 53:2 sqq. are the heathen who recognize that Israel has borne their (the heathen) sins? This is the view that the Rabbins put forward since they have begun to carry on polemics with Christians. But even Christian expositors have joined them, among whom Hitzig is to be named foremost. But it has often been shown, that Israel did not suffer as an innocent for the guilty heathen, but that it suffered for its own guilt; and that it has not borne its sufferings meekly, but with sullen anger, and, as far as possible, with obstinate resistance. Comp. especially McCaul, The doctrine and exposition of the 53 of Isaiah.—V. Fr. Oehler, Der knecht Jehovah’s im Deuterojesaja II, p66 sqq.—Wuensche, Die Leiden, des Messias, Leipzig, 1870, p35 sqq. Many Rabbins, indeed, as David Kimchi and Isaak Troki, have modified this view, saying, that not Israel thinks thus of itself, but the heathen will so say, “when they see that the faith of Israel is the truth, and on the contrary their faith is error” (Wuensche, l. c, p36). On the other hand, McCaul has called attention to the fact that Isaiah 53:11-12, Jehovah Himself describes the suffering of His Servant as expiatory.—Others understand that by the Servant of Jehovah is meant the ideal Israel, i.e., the higher unity of the nation. This higher unity suffered, not because it consisted of nothing but guilty ones, but, on the contrary, in spite of its consisting only partially of such. It suffered therefore, because not all had sinned and yet all must suffer, in a certain sense innocently, and is so far a prophecy (not prediction) relating to Christ. So Vatke (Religion des Alten Test, 1835). But to this it is to be objected, that this view amounts to a distinction between the better and worse part of the nation to which the text makes no reference whatever. For it manifestly does not contrast one part of the nation with another part, but the entire nation with the one Servant of God. The Prophet does not distinguish guilty and innocent in the nation. He sees in the nation only guilty ones. This he utters plainly, ver. Isaiah 6 : “all we like lost sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”—Others understand “the true worshippers of Jehovah” to be meant by the Servant of God. This is the view that Knobel represents. According to this the Prophet in Isaiah 53:2-6 speaks in the first person plural, “because he puts himself among the people, and would be a voice out of the midst of the totality.” His view of the sufferings of the Servant was only partially that of the nation, for the rest (viz., in respect to the cause of their sufferings) this ought to have been their view. That is, the sufferings of the Exile, which were regarded as punishments for the sins of the nation, concerned (according to Knobel) especially the true worshippers of Jehovah, who obstinately clung to their nationality, and were very zealous for Jehovah and opposed to idols. They were especially the עֲנִיִּים. The mass of the people, on the other hand, that did not cling strictly to the ancestral religion, stood in good terms with the heathen, and, on the whole, found themselves in tolerable relations. This explanation is so unnatural and inwardly conflicting that it refutes itself. It would have the suffering Servant of Jehovah represent the true worshippers of Jehovah, and those, that in Isaiah 52:2-6 speak of the Servant in the first person plural, to be the apostate Israelites, constituting the great mass of the nation. Then the worshippers of Jehovah and those apostates are opponents. Yet verily the apostates can not speak of the worshippers of Jehovah with great reverence and deep sympathy. In their mouth the name “Servant of Jehovah” could only be used in mockery. They could only be supposed to say: It is well that such fools are among us: then the hatred of the heathen will discharge itself on them without hurting us. But that serves them right. Why do they not do as we? Why do they not howl along with the wolves? They might fare as well as we, were they only prudent. In some such way must the apostates speak of the worshippers of Jehovah, if their real sentiments were to appear. But the words sound quite otherwise, that, according to Knobel, come out of the midst of the nation. They are words of the highest reverence. Knobel feels this himself, and hence he makes the Prophet speak these words, expressing thereby, not what the mass of the people actually thought, but what they ought to have thought! How unnatural! The Prophet of Jehovah, who can only be thought of as a worshipper of Jehovah, speaks as the representative, not of such worshippers, but of the great apostate mass of the nation. He expresses, however, not, indeed, the sentiments that these actually harbored, but such as they ought to harbor! What comedy is this? Verily, if such a distinction between apostates and worshippers of Jehovah be allowed, the Prophet could only meet the former with rebuke. He could only hold up to them their apostacy and admonish them to bear the infamy of Jehovah with the true Israelites, rather than to roll it off, in craven treachery, on their fellow-countrymen.——According to another view the Servant of Jehovah represents the prophetic class or the prophetic institution. Thus in various modifications especially Gesenius and Umbreit; whereas Hofmann understands that by the Servant of God is meant Christ indeed, but only as a prophet. What is said of the sufferings of the Servant does, indeed, in a general way, apply well enough to the prophetic calling; for the prophets were often enough obliged to suffer distress, judgment, contempt, death for the sake of that calling. Yet one thing remains, that under no circumstances can be said of a prophet, viz., that God the Lord cast on Him the guilt of the people, that He bore the sin of the people, that by His wounds the people were healed and made well. If, indeed, one is determined to find in our passage only the idea of suffering in a calling and not suffering as a representative, I must say that this is only possible by means of an artful exegesis, and refer to the following exposition for the proof of this opinion. Comp. moreover the Doctrinal and Ethical thoughts.

I hold the Messianic interpretation to be the only one that is natural and founded on the sound of the words. When Knobel affirms that the Old Testament knows nothing of a suffering Messiah, and that Deutero-Isaiah knows nothing of a Messiah at all, it just depends on the way one expounds the passages in question. If one does this in the way exhibited in the above sample of Knobel’s style of exegesis, then one can interpret away from every passage whatever he dislikes, and interpret whatever he likes into it. Whoever sees that Christ is the Lamb of God that bears away the sin of the world according to the eternal counsel of God already revealed in the Old covenant, must recognize the connection between this fact and Old Testament prophecy; he must especially recognize in Isaiah 53the outline of that plan of salvation.

As, speaking generally, all types of the old covenant combine in the one image of the מָשִׁיחַ, so also, in a narrower sphere, the various typical forms of the Servant of Jehovah, given partly in the nation of Israel generally ( Isaiah 41:8 sqq.), partly in the pious core of the nation ( Isaiah 14:1-5), partly in the prophets ( Isaiah 44:26), finally unite in the one figure of the personal Servant of Jehovah. As the species of primitive rock form both the deepest foundation and the highest summit of the earth’s body, so is Christ at once the original and fulfilment of all prophecy. He is in particular both the inmost core and the crowning summit of all typical forms of the Servant of Jehovah. It is to be observed, however, that the Servant of Jehovah is not a type-form co-ordinate with the types of the prophet, priest, and king. But He represents alone the character of the lowly, unsightly, pitiable “Servant-form” or the “sorrowful form” as far as that is common to all those type-forms. For that the Old Testament knows also a king “of the sorrowful form” is evident from Zechariah 9:9. Hence it is, of course, not correct to say, that in Isaiah 53is drawn the form of the messianic Priest, King, or Prophet. For Isaiah 53treats only of the Servant of Jehovah, and only of the Priest, King, or Prophet, so far as even in these also the poor, lowly Servant appears. Hence, too, one may not say that all the persons of the old covenant “that have ever been designated (as servants and instruments of God) by the name Servant of Jehovah, are servants of God in the Isaianic sense. This specific Servant of Jehovah, that we find in Isaiah 40-53as type of the poverty and lowliness of the Messiah, does not appear at all in the older writing. When Moses ( Exodus 14:31; Joshua 1:1-2; Joshua 1:13; Psalm 105:26; 2 Kings 18:12, etc.), Jacob ( Genesis 32:10), the Patriarchs ( Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 9:27) are designated by this name, it is as the servants of Jehovah, without giving prominence to the form of the servant. What servant-form would one find in the angels, who are also called the servants of God in Job 4:18? It is, indeed, possible that the idea of a servant-form veiling the inward glory gradually developed from observing the contrasts in the life of a David (comp. Psalm 18:1; Psalm 89:4; Psalm 89:21; Psalm 132:10; Psalm 144:10; 2 Samuel 7:5; 2 Samuel 7:8; 2 Samuel 7:18; 2 Samuel 7:20 sq, etc.), of a Job ( Isaiah 1:8; Isaiah 2:3; Isaiah 42:7-8) of the prophets ( 2 Kings 9:7; 2 Kings 9:36; 2 Kings 10:10; 2 Kings 14:25; 2 Kings 17:23, etc.), yea, of the pious in general ( Psalm 19:12; Psalm 19:14; Psalm 31:17; Psalm 35:27, etc.). But we first find this idea crystallized into a fixed form in the second part of Isaiah. Later writers may have taken the expression from is, and applied it in his sense, especially to the people of Israel (comp. Jeremiah 30:10; Jeremiah 46:27-28; Psalm 136:22). But one must be on his guard about taking every use of the word by later writers in the Isaianic sense. Thus Nebuchadnezzar ( Jeremiah 25:9) is called servant of Jehovah, but certainly not in Isaiah’s sense. Before and in is, עֶבֶד is never found conjoined with any other name of God than יהוה. It is remarkable, that Moses, in later writings, beside being called עבד יהוה ( 2 Chronicles 1:3; 2 Chronicles 24:9), is also called עבד האלהים ( 1 Chronicles 6:34; 2 Chronicles 24:9; Nehemiah 10:30; Daniel 9:11).

Our prophecy subdivides into three parts. The first ( Isaiah 52:13-15) contains the theme of the prophecy; the second ( Isaiah 53:1-7 treats of the lowliness of the Servant; the third ( Isaiah 53:8-12) treats of his exaltation.

____________________

1. THE THEME OF THE PROPHECY

Isaiah 52:13-15

13 Behold, my servant shall ¹²deal prudently,

He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

14 As many were ¹³astonied at thee;

His visage was so marred more than any man,

And his form more than the sons of men:

15 So shall he ¹⁴sprinkle many nations;

The kings shall shut their mouths at him:

¹⁵ For that which had not been told them shall they see;

And that which they had not heard shall they consider.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Ver13 נָבָה–שָׂכַל see List. The three-degree climax ירום ונשׂא ונדה must neither be pressed, nor regarded as without significance. It is a rhetorical expedient for expressing the superlative (comp. ὑπερύψωσε Philippians 2:9; Acts 2:33; Acts 5:31; Ephesians 1:20 sqq.).——That רוּם may mean “to raise one’s-self” maybe seen Isaiah 30:18.——The conjunction of רום ונשׂא and in that order is Isaianic: Isaiah 2:12-14; Isaiah 10:33.

Ver14 כַּ‍ֽאֲשֶׁר–כֵּן is used here as in Exodus 1:12 (Gesen.). Therefore, with most expositors, I hold the clause כֵּן־מִשְׁחַת–אָדָם to be a parenthesis, that explains why many are astonished at the Servant. In regard to the change of person, there is notoriously great freedom in Hebrew, and also in Isaiah 1:29; Isaiah 2:6; Isaiah 14:30; Isaiah 33:2; Isaiah 33:6; Isaiah 41:1; Isaiah 42:20; Isaiah 14:8; Isaiah 14:21). Haevernick, (Theol. d. A. T., p248), Hahn and V. F. Oehler regard the two clauses with כֵּן as the two degrees of the apodosis. Haevernick urges that כן does not mean adeo, and in that he is of course correct. It is only the comparative ita, not the intensive tam or adeo. But he is wrong in urging the rarity of the parenthesis in Hebrew, and asserting that כן can only introduce the apodosis. Hahn, who pronounces the change of persons carelessness, which one has not the least right to assume (he does not reflect, however, on the frequency of this usage!) is of the opinion, that as Isaiah 52:11-12 speak of Israel, and Isaiah 52:13 of the Servant, Song of Solomon, too, Isaiah 52:14 speaks first of Israel, and then of the Servant. But that is quite a superficial construction. For there is a chasm between Isaiah 52:12-13. With ver 13 there begins a new, specifically different section, and it is on the contrary quite unnatural and against the context to refer עליך again to the nation. V. Fr. Oehler apparently avoids this unnaturalness by referring also ver 13 to the nation, and letting the transition to the servant begin with כן משׁחת. But this construction also does violence to the text.——מִשְׁחַת from שָׁחַת, Kal unused, Piel “corrupit, pessum dedit,” is any way ἅπ. λεγ. Analogous formations מָשְׁחָת “corruptio, corruptum,” Leviticus 22:25 and מַשְׁחֵת “pernicies,” Ezekiel 9:1. It is uncertain and indifferent as to sense which is the chief form, מִשׁחָת or מִשׁחַת (syncopated from מִשְׁחֶתֶת (Haevernick, et al.) or מִשׁחַת as e.g., מִדְמַם, מֵרְכַּב. The expression משּחת מאישׁ is explained from the capability of the preposition מִן to express a negation. Deformity away from the man is deformity or disfigurement to an appearance no longer human. מִן has an analogous meaning in the clause ותארו מבני אדם. For here also the literal meaning is: his form is away from men, i.e., no longer human.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. These verses, which by their contents necessarily belong to chap 53 according to the common manner of the Prophet, stand in front as giving the theme. Ver 13 sets forth the final goal: the glory and sublimity of the Servant of Jehovah. But in roughest contrast with this stands the way that He must go in order to reach that goal: deepest suffering, by which He almost loses His human appearance (ver14). But as the humiliation is deep, so is the exaltation high: the Gentile world and its kings will worship Him that is exalted out of suffering, for they, for whom the salvation appeared not to be destined, will also have a share in it (ver15).

2. Behold my Servant——they consider.

Vers13–15. The expression ישׂביל points to the reciprocal relation of means and end. He that uses the means that lead to the end is wise. The Servant of God will use no false means, therefore He is wise. השׂביל never of itself has the meaning of חִצְלִיחַ; but in the sapienter rem gerere there is impliedly the bene rem gerere (comp. Jeremiah 10:21; Proverbs 17:8). Hengstenberg sees in ישׂכיל a “retrospect” to 1 Samuel 18:14-15 where this word is used of David (comp. 1 Kings 2:3; Psalm 101:2; 2 Kings 18:7). But he seems to me to go too far when, according to the parallel passage cited, he understands ישׂכיל to mean the wise administration of government, and Stier has properly protested against this construction. Yet we may suppose there is an allusion involving only comparison and not equalization. For the Servant of God appears here, not indeed as king, but as one that, like David, from a small, mean beginning worked himself aloft to high honor.

But the splendid description of ver 13 anticipates merely the end. This end crowns a course of development of the contrary character. It passes through night to light, per ardua ad astra. The vers14, 15 say this. For many the Servant of God became an object of horror (שָׁמַם comp. Leviticus 26:32; Ezekiel 27:35; Ezekiel 28:19). But in the same proportion that He first provokes horror by the deformity of His appearance, He will later provoke wondering reverence. His visage was so marred,etc. [“His look however was in that degree disfigured to the inhuman, and His form not like a son of man’s.” Dr. Naegelsbach’s translation.—Tr.]. These words are a parenthesis (see Text. and Gram.). There occurs accordingly a change of person, which, as Hengstenberg remarks, is explained by the parenthesis containing a remark of the Prophet, in which, naturally, the Servant is spoken of in the third person. But by this the continuation of Jehovah’s discourse in ver15 is also diverted from the second to the third person (see Text. and Gram.).

Since Isaiah 50:10 the expression עֶבֶד “servant” has not been used. Chapters51, 52spoke of the people of Israel without applying to them the designation “Servant of God.” According to Œhler’s exposition, in Isaiah 52:14 to Isaiah 53:12 also the personal Servant of God is not spoken of; and now Isaiah 52:13 must not be introduction to what follows, but recapitulation of what precedes! After previously speaking of Israel’s elevation, and bringing this contemplation to a close in every respect, is it now again to be discoursed on? A section treating of the personal Servant of God ought to begin with a statement having the Servant of God for subject, and yet this Servant of God must not be the one of whom the new section treats, but the one of which the foregoing section treated, yet without designating it as the Servant of God! In this way ver13, from being a most suitable and artistic beginning of the new section, becomes an unsuitable conclusion of the foregoing one. Of course one will not venture to take בֵּן in the sense of “adeo,” which it does not have. But it is equivalent to “corresponding to, in that degree that,” and involves the meaning that the horror of the people answers to the looks of the Servant, so that the former is prompted by the latter. There will be a certain equality between fortunate and unfortunate consequences, in the same degree that one was horrified at Him, He will also provoke joyful wonder and reverence ( Isaiah 52:15). נָזָה is “to spring,” and with the exception of our text is used in the Old Testament (in twenty places) only of the springing or spurting of fluids. It occurs in this sense also Isaiah 63:3. This use is especially frequent in the Pentateuch, where the various acts of purification and consecration are spoken of, which were performed by sprinkling with blood or water. Hence very many expositors, following the Vulg, and Syr, as Luther, Vatabl, Forer, Grotius(who yet also approved the θαυμάσονται of the LXX. since he says, “minari est veluti aspergi fulgore alicujus,” for which Vitringa reproves him sharply), Lowth (whom however this exposition does not satisfy), Rambach, Hengstenberg, Haevernick, Hahn,etc. [Barnes, J. A. Alex, Birks,etc.], have taken נָזָה in the sense of asperget, [“to asperse, besprinkle”] and have considered the reference to be to the atoning power of the blood of Christ (“Christus virtutem sanguinis a se fusi instar Magni Pontificis domus Dei applicabit ad purificationem conscientiarum gentium multarum.” Vitringa). This explanation was the one generally received by the church. But it is correctly objected to it, that הִזָּה never means “to be-sprinkle” but always “to spout,” “to make burst,” and is always followed by the accusative of the spurted fluid, with עַל or אֶל of the remoter object that is spurted on. Perhaps on this account the Targ. Jonat, then Saadia and Abenezra gave the rendering disperget. But apart from this meaning not being grammatically established, it does not at all suit the context. There has been an effort to change the reading. Thus the Englishmen Durell and Jubb, whom Lowth quotes, would read יחַזּוּ, which they then take in the sense of the θαυμάσονται of the LXX.: so shall many nations wonder at him.” But Piel of חָזָה never occurs, and the meaning “θαυμάζεσθαι” would be dragged in. J. Dav. Michaelis would point יַזַּהּ after the Arabic naziha (amoenus fuit, oblectavit), accordingly the sense would be: “so shall He be the delight of many Gentiles.” This conjecture, also, must be called too far-fetched. The most satisfactory explanation is the one now approved by most expositors (since Ch. Dav. Martini,Comment. philol. crit. in Jes. cap. 53 Rost. 1791): “He will make spring up,” which springing up is taken either as the expression of joy or of astonishment, surprise, or of reverence, and is construed in antithesis to שׁממו עליך Isaiah 52:14. Also Stier, Delitzsch, V. Fr. Œhler share this view. I side with them because I know of nothing better. The thought in itself, indeed, seems to me suitable. For one can, of course, suppose that the Prophet means to oppose to that horror with which the suffering Servant was regarded, a surprised springing up proceeding from respectful astonishment. One might quote as a parallel קָמוּ שָׂרִים וְיִשְׁתַּ‍ֽחֲוּ, Isaiah 49:7. And one might also fittingly refer to Jeremiah 33:9 (וְרָ‍ֽנְזוּ נוֹים פָ‍ֽחֲדוּ) and Habakkuk 3:6 (וַיַּתֵּר נּוֹיִם). But nevertheless it remains an unfortunate affair, that נָזָה is used in the Old Testament only of the springing or spurting of fluids, and never of persons, and that for the latter use one can only appeal to Arabic analogies (naza, see Gesen.Thes. p868 a). In my opinion, it is possible that the reading יַזֶּה is not correct. Perhaps we ought to read יַתֵּר גּוֹיִם as in Habakkuk 3:6. That would give the same sense by means of a genuine Hebrew word, though one, indeed, not frequently used. For נָתַר “tremuit, subsilivit” occurs beside only Leviticus 11:12; Job 37:1. If יַתֵּר was the original reading in our text, it were alowable to think that the contents of chap 53 occasioned the substitution of the priestly word יזה for the one that may have fallen out in some way, or have become indistinct. [The foregoing review of the state of the question concerning יַזֶה, and the Author’s own despairing attempt, dispose one to say “the old is better” and to adhere to the English accepted version. J. A. Alex, says of the other views and especially of that stated above to be the most generally adopted by modern expositors: “The explanation is in direct opposition to a perfectly uniform Hebrew usage, and without any real ground even in Arabic analogy. The ostensible reasons for this gross violation of the clearest principles of lexicography are: first the chimera of a perfect parallelism, which is never urged except in cases of great necessity; and secondly, the fact that in every other case the verb is followed by the substance sprinkled, and connected with the object upon which it is sprinkled by a preposition. But since both constructions of the verb “to sprinkle” are employed in other languages (as we may either speak of sprinkling a person or of sprinkling water on him), the transition must be natural, and no one can pretend to say, that two or more examples of it in a book of this size are required to demonstrate its existence. The real motive of the strange unanimity with which the true sense has been set aside, is the desire to obliterate this clear description, at the very outset, of the Servant of Jehovah as an expiatory purifier, one who must be innocent Himself in order to cleanse others.—Another objection to the modern explanation of the word is, that it then anticipates the declaration of the next clause, instead of forming a connecting link between it and the first.”—Some that hold the modern view, as our Author and Delitzsch, may not be charged with what J. A. Alex, pronounces the real motive of it. See above the introduction to this section. But surely it is easier to conjecture that יַזֶּה has the force and construction involved in the old view (if that rendering can be charged with being no better than conjecture) than to resort to such a conjecture as that of the Author.—Tr.].—The added נּוֹיִם by no means represents, in relation to ver14a, merely a (quantitative) intensification (see immediately below on ver14 b). Shall shut their mouths is a sign of reverence (comp. Matthew 7:16, and in general Isaiah 49:7). עָלָיו is causal: on account of His surprisingly imposing appearance they are dumb. To understand the causal clause ‍‏‏ّכי אשׁר לא ספר ונו׳ as Delitzsch does (“what was never told they see, what was never heard they hear”) the text must read כִּי אֲשֶׁר לֹא סֻפַּר רָאוּ. But the additional לָהֶם, of which that explanation makes no account, intimates rather that the Prophet lays the emphasis on the antithesis between the Jews and the Gentiles. Hence he adds before רַבִּים the word נּוֹיִם. Many heathen nations trembled before Him in reverence, and their kings were dumb before Him, whereas Israel felt only aversion for Him. Thus it happened that those did not recognize Him to whom He was announced in advance, whereas those to whom nothing about Him was announced saw Him and understood ( Isaiah 65:1; Isaiah 66:19). It is clear, therefore, that סֻפַר and שָׁ‍ֽמְעוּ refer to the prophetic announcement that preceded the historical appearance of the Servant of Jehovah, and prepared the way for it. It was just that Israel, prophetically acquainted with Him in advance, that did not receive Him; whereas the heathen, that yet were without such preparation, made Him welcome. [“The last clause, in grammar, admits equally the received version or that of the LXX. given above (Birks translates as Dr. Naegelsbach does.—Tr.). But St. Paul’s quotation, Romans 15:20-21, where this very promise, as rendered above, is made the rule and law of his own conduct as the Apostle of the Gentiles, seems decisive in favor of the latter meaning (LXX, Vulg, Luth, Crusius, Stier). Beside the authority of an inspired comment, the context favors this construction. That wide publication of the gospel, to which Paul applies the words, and in which he was the chief instrument, explains how it would be that many nations and kings should come to do homage to Messiah. Birks.—Tr.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12. “This chapter, that has already silenced so many scoffers, and led so many honest doubters to believe, when they compared the prophecy with the fulfilment, and when the wonderful agreement with the history of the suffering, death and resurrection of our Redeemer shone upon them so glorious and clear—this master-piece from the armory of God, whose power unbelieving Israel even at this day fears so much that it has gone on omitting it from its yearly selections from the prophets for the weeks, but in doing so has given powerful testimony against itself and for the truth of the gospel—this chapter is a precious jewel of our Bible.” Axenfeld, Der Proph. Jes, A Lecture, 1870, p60 sq.

2. On Isaiah 52:13. In the Midrasch Tanchuma, Fol53, c3, 1, 7 it reads: זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ וְיָרוּמ מִן אַבְרָחָם וְנִשֶּׂא מִמּשֶׁה וִגָבַהּ מִן מַש‍ֽלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת i.e., this is the King Messiah, He will be higher than Abraham, and raise Himself up more than Moses and be exalted above the angels of the ministry. On this Wuensche l. c. remarks p. Isaiah 42 : “This passage is additionally important from the fact that it teaches the doctrine of the sublimity of the Messiah, so strongly opposed by the later Jews. He rises above all created being; even the angels of the ministry may not be compared with Him in respect to their dignity and rank.”

3. On Isaiah 52:14. It is remarkable that the church in the times of persecution before Constantine, conceived of the bodily form of the Lord as ugly: (Clem. Alex. Paedag. III:1. τόν κύριον αὐτὸν τὴν ὄψιν αἰσχρὸν γεγονέναι διὰ Ἡσαΐου τὸ πνεῦμα μαρτυρεῖ. Origen, C. Cels. VI.: ὁμολογουμένως γέγραπται περὶ τοῦ δυσειδὲς γεογνέναι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ σῶμα); the secularized church of the Middle Age conceived of Him as a form of ideal beauty (comp. the description of the form of Jesus in Nicephorus Callisti L. II. c7, and in the letter of the Pseudo-Lentulus, comp. Herz. R. Enc. VIII. p 292 sqq, Delitzsch Jesus and Hillel, 1865, p4); the church of the Reformation took a middle course: “It is quite possible that some may have been as beautiful in body as Christ. Perhaps some have even been more beautiful than Christ. For we do not read that the Jews wondered at the beauty of the Lord.” Luther.

4. On Isaiah 53:4-5. “Justin Martyr (Apol. I. c54) sees in Asklepios, the physician that healed all diseases, a type of Christ parallel to that of the Servant who bears our sickness.” Edward Mueller, “Parallels to the Messianic prophecies and types of the Old Testament from Greek antiquity” (Jahrbb. f. Klass. Philol. v. Fleckeisen VIII. Supplem-Bd. 1 Hft. p5).

5. On Isaiah 53:4-6. The peculiarity of V. Hofmann’s doctrine of the atonement seems to me to have its root in this, that he distinguishes a two-fold wrath of God against sinful humanity, viz., “how God is angry with sinful humanity that is destined to be brought back again into love-fellowship with Him, and how He is angry with those who refuse obedience to His work of salvation.” (Schutzschriften für eine neue Weise die alte Wahrheit zu Lehren III. Stück, Noerdlingen, 1859, p 13 sq.). “In both instances His anger is an enmity of the holy Living (One) against sin that delivers the sinner to death. But in the one case it delivers him to death in order to redeem him out of it, in the other case that he may remain in it. Had God not intended to save mankind, then the death to which He delivered those first created would have been complete and enduring.” There appears to me to be a contradiction in this. For first it is said, that had God not intended to redeem mankind, then the first pair had been delivered to complete and enduring death. And then it is said, that the wrath of God does so deliver the one that is disobedient to His work of salvation over to death that he abides in it. Thus eternal death appears at one moment as punishment for sin in itself, and at another as punishment for rejecting the work of salvation. That God did not deliver over to complete and enduring death the first pair and their descendants was then merely because He had formed the purpose to redeem mankind. Therefore one would still think that what the Redeemer suffered made it possible for the divine righteousness to remit to men the complete and abiding death. Consequently, one might still think that Christ, by His death had given the divine righteousness an equivalent for the “complete and abiding death” of mankind. But, according to Hofmann, such is not the case. For he asserts that the wrath of God delivers to abiding death only those that refuse obedience to His work of salvation. For this reason Christ did not bear the torments of damnation. Indeed for this reason a redemption from eternal death is neither possible nor necessary. For those that do not accept the work of salvation cannot be redeemed from eternal death at all, while those that do accept need not to be redeemed, because eternal death belongs in fact only to those that do not accept the work of salvation. There we have I think a circulus vitiosus. In view of the redemption, the first pair and their descendants are not punished with the eternal death that their sin in itself deserves, but only with corporeal death. But the Redeemer does not die in order to redeem men from eternal death, for the latter is suddenly only the consequence of unbelief in the work of salvation. But the Redeemer dies to redeem men from that punishment which was laid on them as a mitigated sort in view of the redemption. For Christ was only subjected to that anger with which God was angry at those who were destined to a Revelation -entrance into His fellowship of love, not to that “which abides on those who are disobedient to the grace of God,” l. c. p14. Consequently one would think Christ only redeemed us from bodily death. And yet from that we are not redeemed. Hofmann says, indeed: “we do not abide in it” (p51). It is true, the redeemed do not abide in it. But that is only for the reason that they are also redeemed from eternal death. For were the latter not the case, then the bodily death would only be a transit to what is worse, i.e., to eternal death. Therefore eternal death is the punishment, not only of not believing inredemption, but of sin in general. But Christ redeemed us from sin and its punishment generally, and not merely from what remained of the punishment that, with reference to the redemption, was from the first remitted to us.

6. On Isaiah 53:4. “Hic est articulus justificationis, credere Christum pro nobis possum, sicut Paulus quoque dicit: Christus est foctus maledictum pro nobis. Neque enim satis Esther, nosse, quod Christus sit passus, sed, sicut hic dicit, credendum etiam Esther, quod nostros languores tulerit, quod non pro se, neque pro suis peccatis sit passus, sed pro nobis; quod illos morbos tulerit, illos dolores in se reciperit, quos nos oportuit pati. Atque hunc locum qui recte tenet, ille summam Christianismi tenet. Ex hoc enim loco Paulus tot epistolas, tot sententiarum et consolationum flumina hausit.”—“Christianus quasi in alio mundo collocatus neque peccata neque merita aliqua nosse debet. Quodsi peccata se habere sentit, adspiciat ea, non qualia sint in sua persona, sed qualia sint in illa persona, in quam a Deo sunt conjecta, hoc est videat, qualia sint non in se nec in conscientia sua, sed in Christo, in qao expiata et devicta sunt. Sic fiet, ut habeat purum ac mundum cor ab omni peccato per fidem, quae credit, peccata sua in Christo victa et prostrata esse.” Luther.

7. On Isaiah 53:4. “We have many wrath and fire mirrors of the just God, how He thunders and lightens on account of sin; such as the flood, Genesis 7; Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19; Pharaoh and all his, Exodus 14. But what are all those to this, that God so dreadfully racked and smote His only begotten Song of Solomon, the highest and infinite good, that a stone in the ground might have lamented, and even the hard rocks did rend asunder on account of it at the time of His suffering?” Cramer.

8. On Isaiah 53:5. “O mirabile genus medicinae, ubi medicus aegrotat, ut aegrotis sanitatem efferat.”—“Medico occiso sanati sumus. Quis unquam audivit talia?”—“Tota vita Christi crux fuit et martyrium, et tu quaeris gaudium?”—Omni diligentia atque vigilantia caveamus, ne vulneret diabolus quod sanavit Christus.” Augustin. “Est jucundissima consolatio: livores ipsius sunt nostrum emplastrum. Atqui nos meriti eramus livores et ipsi debebatur sanitas. Si quis ergo sanitatem optat, ille non suam castigationem et crucem consideret, sed tantum respiciat in Christum et credat, tum sanabitur, hoc Esther, habebit justitiam eternam.” Luther.

9. On Isaiah 53:6. Sin isolates men, because its principle is egoism. Every one accordingly makes himself a centre, around which all must revolve. But by this we lose the true, all-controlling, right guiding centre, and are as stars that are become excentric, that must finally dash to pieces on one another.—“Redimit pretiose, pascit laute, ducit sollicite, collocat securi.” Bernhard of Clairvaux.

10. On Isaiah 53:6. God laid on Him the sin of us all. That is the great enigma of the Christian doctrine of atonement. It is the point that for so many is a stone of stumbling, since it appears as if God outwardly and arbitrarily transfers the guilt of men to One, who, Himself innocent, has no inward, real relation whatever to the guilt of another. And this is verily one of the mysteries of Christian doctrine. The Lord says: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit,” John 12:24. And Paul says: “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death?” And in the same connection he says: “Knowing this that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed [justified: Marg.] from sin,” Romans 6:3; Romans 6:6-7. It is true, Christ stood alone in death, and though he had the imputed sin, the organic connection of our sin with Him was wanting. But in the sequel He suddenly stands as the centre of a great complex of fruit. By baptism we are all baptized into Him, and in fact such as we are by nature, with our old Adam and all its sins. Yet now Paul says that our old man is crucified with Christ in baptism. Therefore he assumes that we men are in the sequel transposed into the communion of the death of Christ, and that our justification rests on the fact that we have actually died with Christ. Still it will be said that this itself is an enigma; that one can as little solve one riddle by another, as cast out one devil by another. But perhaps the new enigma still shows where we must direct our inquiring thoughts in order at last to find the solution.

11. On Isaiah 53:8. “Innocent Lamb of God, yea, Thou shalt have seed; as long as the sun continues Thy name shall extend to posterity ( Psalm 72:17). Out of anguish and out of the judgment hast Thou come, and who will declare to the end the extent of Thy life? ‘The lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David has overcome, to open the book and to break its seven seals.’ Now they sing to Thee a new Song of Solomon, and Thine whom Thou hast bought with Thy blood say eternally: ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and Wisdom of Solomon, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature (says the seer) which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.’ ” Tholuck.

12. On Isaiah 53:9. “Sepeliri se passus est Dominus 1) ut sabbatum redemtionis responderet sabbato creationis, quod illius typus fuit; 2) ut testaretur, se non οἰομένως sed ὅντως fuisse mortuum. Unde Tertullianus recte: non sepultus esset, nisi mortuus; 3) ut sepulcra nostra consecraret in κοιμητήρια contactu corporis ipsius sanctissimi sanctificata (Jes27:19; 57:2); 4) ut praefiguraret quietam nostram spiritualem ab operibus carnis ( Hebrews 4:9-10).” Foerster.

13. On Isaiah 53:9. “Christ can boast both sorts of innocence, viz, causae and personae. For He suffers in the greatest innocence, and is above that innocent through and through in His whole person and nature, to the end that He might restore what He took not away ( Psalm 69:4). For we ought to have such an high priest ( Hebrews 7:26).”—Cramer.

14. On Isaiah 53:10. “Hujus sacrificii expiatorii quatuor sunt privilegia: 1) est propitiatio pro totius mundi peccatis ( 1 John 2:2); 2) in hoc idem est ὁ προσφέρων καὶ ὁ προσφερόμενος (Ephes. Isaiah 5:2); 3) est unicum semelque tantum oblatum ( Hebrews 7:27); 4) hoc unico sacrificio Christus consummavit in eternam eos, qui sanctificantur ( Hebrews 10:14).—Foerster.

15. On Isaiah 53:11. “Christ makes righteous not by communicating His essential righteousness, but by communicating His merit. For He bears their sins. The means, however, by which this righteousness comes to us is His knowledge that consists in true saving faith.” “Plus est credere Christo, quam deliquisse saeculo.”—Ambrose. “Justificat multos agnitione sui.”—Cramer.

16. On Isaiah 53:11. (צַדִּיק). “Plato Derep. L. II, 362, d. e., describes the righteous man, who, in purest and completest exercise of virtue, unconcerned about the opinion of the world and the outward effects of his conduct, on his own part only reaps infamy and shame, suffering and abuse of every sort for his righteousness, and yet, unswervingly pursuing his aim, most cruelly racked, and tormented, bound, robbed of eyesight by the rudest violence, remains ever true to himself, and at last suffers the most infamous and cruel death as the reward of his virtue, the death of the cross.” Ed. Mueller, l. c., p11. Comp. Doellinger, Heidenthum und Christenthum, 1857, p300.

17. On Isaiah 53:12. “Let even the hardest stone strive against the Lord Christ, all must still become vain pottery that dash themselves against Him, as it is written: ‘Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder’ ( Matthew 21:24). And as Luther says: ‘Therefore Christ says, also; Good people do not brush against me, let me be the rock, and do not get into conflict with me; for if not, then I say for certain, I am a stone, and will not be afraid of jugs because they have big bellies, and which, the more they are swelled out, are the easier shattered and the easier to hit.’ My good Saul, it will go hard for thee to kick against the goads, said the Lord Christ to Saul, and although he resisted, he had still to yield. For as it is written: even the strong shall he have for a prey.”—Tholuck.

HOMILETICAL HINTS

1. On Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12. The suffering of our glorified Lord Jesus, how I, it is not recognized; II, yet is carried out; III, glorified”. Gotfried Arnold, Ev. Botschaft der Herrlichkeit Gottes, 4 Aufl., p338 sqq.

2. On Isaiah 53:1-5. “Concerning the various reception of the word of the cross by men.” C. F. Harttman, Passionspredigten, Heilbronn, 1872, p169.

3. On Isaiah 53:1. “The mount Golgotha. 1) A scene for the display of unbelief and belief. The rulers of the people, the mass of the people, the one murderer give evidence of unbelief; the mother of Jesus and the other women, together with John, the Centurion, the thief were believing. But the greatest example of faith is given by the Son of God Himself, who is called a beginner and finisher of our faith2. A place where the arm of the Lord is revealed to us.”—Harttmann, l. c., p277.

4. On Isaiah 53:1. Concerning the reasons for the bad reception men give the word of the cross. 1) One cannot fruitfully consider it, if one does not recognize his own ruin2) It shows us our profound inability to help ourselves3) There is involved in it the obligation to die with Christ4) It is treated in such a frivolous and common-place manner”.—Harttmann, l. c., p169. “The grand turning point in the race of Adam and the new Israel”. Gaupp, Prakt. Theol., 1. Vol, p509. “How the suffering and death of Christ are the greatest thing that has ever occurred in the history of the world. For1) It is the greatest wonder; 2) it is a work of the last necessity; 3) it is a work of the highest love; 4) it is a work of the greatest blessing”. Pfeiffer, in Manch. Gaben u. ein G. III. Jahrg., p248.

5. On Isaiah 53:4 sqq. “How can the suffering of death by an innocent One, bring salvation to the guilty? 1) If the righteous One freely sacrifice Himself for the guilty2) If His sacrifice is an adequate payment for the guilt of the other3) If the guilty uses the freedom from punishment that has been obtained to the salvation of his soul”. Herbig, in Manch. Gaben u. ein G., 1868, p256.

6. On Isaiah 53:4-5. “Concerning the justifying and saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, that especially in a dying person must appear flourishing and strong1) How one must press on to it through conflict2) How it is afterwards full of power, life, peace, righteousness, salvation, blessedness.” Rieger H. C. Superint. in Stuttgart, Funeral Sermons, 1870, p187.

7. On Isaiah 53:3 sqq. “Christ assumed no temporal honor or reputation, but with words and works contradicted all that would have praised, honored, and celebrated Him. For He ever shunned the honor of this world, and gave not even the slightest cause for it ( John 6:15). Yea, in great humility He allowed the greatest contempt and blasphemy to be uttered against Him; for the Jews reproached Him with being a Samaritan, that had a devil and that did His miracles by the power of Satan ( John 8:48). Men treated His divine doctrine as blasphemy. He was pestered by murderous cunning, many lies and calumnies, finally betrayed, sold, denied, struck in the face, spit upon, crowned with thorns, scourged, wounded, condemned, forsaken by God and man, stripped naked as a malefactor, yea, hanged up as a curse ( Galatians 3:13), while every one mocked at Him, laughed at His prayers, cast lots for His clothes, gave Him gall and vinegar to drink in His dying extremity ( John 19:29). Lastly, He died on the tree in the greatest infamy and contumely, His dead body was pierced and opened on the cross, and at last buried as a wicked person; yea, even after His innocent death. He was reproached with being a deceiver ( Matthew 27:63). Men also contradicted His resurrection. And so in life and death and after death He was full of contumely.” Joh. Arndt, Wahr. Christenth. Buch 2, kap14.

8. On Isaiah 53:4-6. “This text is the only medicine, and true, sure and approved theriac against that hurtful soul-poison, despair.” “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities;” and afterwards “all we like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” Thou hearest that He speaks of sins and iniquity; and that thou mayest not think He speaks of some particular people, and not of thee and me, the Holy Spirit lets the words go out strong, and lets this resound: He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquity. Item: God laid all our sin on Him. That means even that no man is excepted.

Now that this is true, that Christ, the Son of God, laden with the sin of all men, was on that account wounded and bruised, wilt thou regard God as so ungracious or so hard, that He will let a debt be paid Him twice? Or shall Christ have suffered such distress and death in vain? In fine; God laid thy sins on Christ; it follows that they no more rest on thee. God wounded Him for thy sins; it follows that thou shalt not bear the punishment. God smote Him for thy sake; it follows that thou shalt go free.” Veit Dietrich.

9. On Isaiah 53:8-10. Is it not really a contradiction to say, that the Servant shall live long because He is taken out of the land of the living? And also, that He will have seed, when He shall have given His life an offering for sin? One sees here that the Prophet has some presentiment of the higher nature of Him whom he presents to us here as the Servant of Jehovah. According to the New Testament view, one must be cut off from the so called land of the living, but which is in truth the land of those devoted to death, in order to reach the land of true, of eternal life. Thus it is hereby intimated, that Christ will die in order to rise up again to everlasting life. Yea, even more! It is also intimated ( Isaiah 53:10), that precisely by the giving up of His life He will accomplish, as it were, an act of generation, the result of which will be an immeasurably numerous and immortal posterity. For by His death He gives us eternal life (comp. John 12:24). The strange death of Christ: 1) By His death He laid down what was mortal in Him, and now appears wholly as the eternal living One; 2) by His death He gives life to them that were a prey to death.

10. On Isaiah 53:10. “The death of Christ: 1) Who willed and decreed it? (God Himself: it pleased the Lord to bruise Him). 2) Why did God will it? (He must give His life an offering for sin). 3) What are His fruits? (He shall see seed and live long, etc.). After Spurgeon, The Gospel of the Prophet Isaiah.

11. On Isaiah 53:11-12. As the exaltation of Christ corresponds in general to His humiliation (comp. Philippians 2:5-11), so also it corresponds in particulars: 1) Because His soul was in tribulation, He will see His pleasures and be satisfied2) Because He bore the sins of many, so Hebrews, the righteous One will by His knowledge make many righteous3) Because He was made like the wicked, He shall have the great multitude for a prey and the strong for spoil.

Footnotes