Chapter 46

[Greek: mê ouk êkousan] in ver. 18. The [Greek: akoê], according to ver. 17: [Greek: hê de akoê dia rhêmatos Theou], is the passive to the active to the word of God. "Who believes our [Greek: akoê], our hearing," _i.e._, that which we hear, which is made known to us by the Word of God. In a passive sense, [Greek: akoê] stands likewise in the passages Matt. iv. 24, xiv. 1, xxiv. 6, which _Stier_ cites in support of the signification "discourse," "preaching;" it is that which has been heard by some one, "rumour," "report." In Heb. iv. 2 (as also in 1 Thess. ii. 13) [Greek: logos akoês], is the word which they heard. That passage: [Greek: ouk ôphelêsen ho logos tês akoês ekeinous, mê sunkekramenos tê pistei tois akousasi], may simply be considered as a paraphrase of our: Who believes that which we hear. A second argument in favour of our explanation: "That which we hear" lies in the relation [Pg 276] to the preceding, which, only when thus explained, arranges itself suitably: "Those understand what they formerly did not hear; Israel, on the contrary, does not believe that which they have heard." Of great importance, _finally_, is the circumstance, that it is only with this interpretation that the unity of the speaker in vers. 1-10 can be maintained. In the sequel, the _we_ everywhere refers to the _believing Church_. But, for this reason, it is difficult to think here of the order of the teachers, which must be the case when we translate: "Who believes our preaching." It has been objected that, even in this case, no real change of subject takes place, but that, in both cases, the Prophet is speaking, with this difference only, that, in ver. 1, he numbers himself among the proclaimers of the message, while, in ver. 2 ff., he reckons himself among the believing Congregation. But we shall be obliged not to bring in the Prophet at all. In ver. 2 ff., the speaker is the believing Church of the _Future_, in the time after the appearance of the Saviour, and just so, in ver. 1, the preaching, if it should be spoken of at all, cannot belong to the Prophet and his contemporaries, but to those only who came forward with the message of the manifested Saviour; just as in John xii. 38; Rom. x. 16, our verse is referred to the unbelief of the Jews in the manifested Saviour. The cause of the unbelief over which ver. 1 laments is indeed, according to vers. 2 and 3, the appearance of the Saviour in the form of a Servant, and His bitter suffering. That, then, must first have taken place, before the unbelief manifested itself.[5] _Stier_ rightly remarks: "Between 'the arm of God,'and ourselves, a [Hebrew: wmveh] is placed as the medium, and the point is to believe in it." It is the gospel, the tidings of the manifested Saviour. By the side of the joy over the many Gentiles who with delight hear and understand the message of the Servant of God, there is the sorrow over the many in Israel who do not believe this message.--The _arm of the Lord_ comes into consideration as the seat of His divine power; comp. chap. xl. 10, li. 5-9, lii. 10. [Pg 277] According to the context, the manifestation of this power in Christ is here spoken of _Stier_ says: "In this Servant, the redeeming arm manifests itself, personifies itself Christ himself is, as it were, the outstretched arm of the Lord." In Rom. i. 16, the Gospel is designated as [Greek: dunamis Theou eis sôtêrian panti tô pisteuonti.] [Hebrew: glh] is elsewhere commonly construed with [Hebrew: al] or [Hebrew: l], here with [Hebrew: el]. This indicates that the revealing of the arm of the Lord is of a _supernatural_ kind, such an one as conies down from above. The Lord has revealed His arm, His power and glory, as He has manifested them in the mission of His servant, _in the eyes of all_ (comp. chap. lii. 10: "The Lord hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God"); but it is really seen by those only whose eyes God opens. The deeds of God, even the most manifest, always retain the nature of a mystery which remains concealed to the worldly disposition. God can be recognised only by God. Of the ungodly it holds true: "With seeing eyes they do not see, and with hearing ears they do not hear." What was the _cause_ of this unbelief in the Son of God, we are told in the sequel. It is the appearance of the Divine in the form of a servant, which the gross carnal disposition cannot understand, and by which it is offended. This offence which, according to the sequel, even the God-fearing had to overcome, is, for the ungodly, a lasting one.

Ver. 2. "_And He grew up as the sprout before Him, and as the root from a dry ground. He had no form nor comeliness: and we see Him, but there is no appearance that we should desire Him._"

The relation of this verse to the preceding one was correctly seen by _Michaelis_: "The cause of the offence is this, that He does not rise or stand out like the cedar, but He grows up gradually," &c. The subject, the Servant of God, is easily inferred from [Hebrew: eliv] in ver. 15. This is the more admissible that ver. 1, too, indirectly refers to Him. He is the subject of the report in whose appearance the arm of the Lord has been revealed. The _sprout_, the twig, designates, even in itself, the poor condition; and, notwithstanding _Stier's_ counter-remarks, it is the pointing to such a poor condition alone which suits the connection, and there is no reason why we should here already [Pg 278] supply "from a dry ground." A member of the royal house before its fall resembled, at his very origin, a proud tree, or, at least, a proud branch of such a tree. The sprout, here, supposes the stump, [Hebrew: gze]. in chap. xi. 8. [Hebrew: ivnq] elsewhere always signifies "suckling;" comp. here chap. xi. 8. Of the sprout, elsewhere, the feminine [Hebrew: ivnqt] is used. According to _Stier_, this deviation from the common use is here not a matter of accident. Supposing a double sense, he finds it an indication of the helpless infancy of the Redeemer, and in this a representation of His lowliness. The LXX.: [Greek: hôs paidion]. The suffix in [Hebrew: lpniv] "before Him" refers to the immediately preceding [Hebrew: ihvh], not to the people. _Before Him_, the Lord--known to Him, watched by Him, standing under His protection, comp. Gen. xvii. 18; Job viii. 16. The lowliness here, and the contempt of men in ver. 3, form the contrast; He is low, but He will not remain so; for the eye of the Most High is directed towards Him. Before the eyes of men who are not able to penetrate to the substance through the appearance, He is concealed; but God beholds Him, beholds His concealed glory, beholds His high destination; and because He beholds, He also takes care, and prepares His transition from lowliness to glory. But the "before Him" does not by any means here form the main thought; it only gives a gentle and incidental hint.--The _root_ denotes here, as in chap. xi. 1, 10, the product of the root, that whereby it becomes visible, the sprout from the root. In reference to this parallel passage, _Stier_ strikingly remarks: "It is, by our modern interpreters, put aside as quietly as possible; for, with a powerful voice, it proclaims to us two truths: that the same Isaiah refers to his former prophecy,--and that this Servant of the Lord here is none other than the Messiah there." A twig which grows up from a dry place is insignificant and poor. Just as the Messiah is here, in respect to His state of humiliation, and specially in reference to His origin from the house of David, sunk into complete obscurity, compared to a weak, insignificant twig, so He is, in Ezek. xvii. 23, in reference to His state of glorification, compared to a lofty, splendid cedar tree, under which all the fowls of heaven dwell. The Jews, in opposition even to ver. 22 of Ezekiel, expected that He should appear so from the very beginning; and since He did not appear so, they [Pg 279] despised Him. The [Hebrew: vnrahv] is, by most of the modern interpreters, in opposition to the accents, connected with the first member: "He had no form nor comeliness that _we should have seen Him_." But from internal reasons, this explanation must be rejected. "To see," in the sense of "to perceive," would not be suitable. For, how could they have such views of the condition of the Servant of God, if they overlooked Him? But it is not possible to adduce any real demonstrative parallel passage in support of [Hebrew: rah] with the Accusat., without [Hebrew: b], ever having the signification, "to look at," "to consider with delight." The circumstance that the Future is used in the sense of the Present: "and we see Him," is explained from the Prophet's viewing it as present.--The statement that the Servant of God had no form, nor comeliness, nor appearance, must not be referred to His lowliness before His sufferings only; we must, on the contrary, perceive, in His sufferings and death, the completion of this condition; in the _Ecce Homo_, the full historical realization of it. _Calvin_ rightly points out that that which here, in the first instance, is said of the Head, is repeated upon the Church; He says: "This must not be understood of Christ's person only, who was despised by the world, and was at last given up to an ignominious death, but of His whole Kingdom which, in the eyes of men, had no form, nor comeliness, nor splendour."

Ver. 3. "_Despised and most unworthy among men, a man of pains and an acquaintance of disease, and like one hiding His face from us, despised, and we esteemed Him not._"

In the preceding verse, we are told what the Servant of God had _not_, viz., anything which could have attracted the natural man who had no conception of the inward glory, and as little of the cause why the Divine appears in the form of a Servant and a sufferer. Here we are told what He had, viz.: everything to _offend_ and _repulse_ him to whom the arm of the Lord had not been revealed,--the full measure of misery and the cross. Instead of "the most unworthy among men," the text literally translated has: "one ceasing from among men" ( [Hebrew: Hdl] in the signification "ceasing" in Ps. xxxix. 5), _i.e._, one who ceases to belong to men, to be a man, exactly corresponding to "from man," and "from the sons of men," in the sketch, ver. 14, and to: "I am a worm and no man," in Ps. xxii. [Pg 280] The explanation: "Forsaken by men, rejected of men," is opposed by the _usus loquendi_, and by these parallel passages.--"A man of pains"--one who, as it were, possesses pains as his property. There is a similar expression in Prov. xxix. 1: "A man of chastenings"--one who is often chastened. "An acquaintance of disease,"--one who is intimately acquainted with it, who has, as it were, entered into a covenant of friendship with it. The passive Participle has no other signification than this, Deut. i. 13, 15, and does not occur in the signification of the active Participle "knowing."--There is no reason for supposing that disease stands here _figuratively_. It comprehends also the pain arising from wounds, 1 Kings xxii. 34; Jer. vi. 7, x. 19; and there is so much the greater reason for thinking of it here, that [Hebrew: hHli] in ver. 10, evidently refers to the [Hebrew: Hli] in this place. As an acquaintance of disease, the Lord especially showed himself in His _passion_. And then _every sorrow_ may be viewed as a disease; every sorrow has, to a certain degree, disease in its train. On Ps. vi., where sickness is represented as the consequence of hostile persecution, Luther remarks: "Where the heart is afflicted, the whole body is weary and bruised; while, on the other hand, where there is a joyful heart, the body is also so much the more active and strong." [Hebrew: hstir] always means "to hide;" the whole phrase occurs in chap. l. 6, in the signification "to hide the face." [Hebrew: mstr] is the Participle in _Hiphil_. In the singular, it is true, such a form is not found any where else; but, in the Plural, it is, Jer. xxix. 8. In favour of the interpretation: "Like one hiding His face from us," is the evident reference to the law in Lev. xiii. 45: "The leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent and his head bare, _and the beard he shall have covered over_, and shall cry: Unclean, unclean,"--where that which the leper crieth forms the commentary upon the symbolical act of the covering. They covered themselves, as a sign of shame, as far as possible, in order to allow of breathing, up to the nose; hence the mention of the beard. In my Commentary on the Song of Solomon i. 7, it was proved that covering has every where the meaning of being put to shame--of being in a shameful condition. The leper was by the law condemned to be a living representation of _sin_. No horror was like that which was felt in his presence. _Hence_ [Pg 281] _it is the highest degree of humiliation and abasement which is expressed by the comparison with the leper, who must hide his face, whom God has marked._ It is the more natural to suppose this reference to the leper, that probably, the [Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM] likewise pointed to the leper. The leper was "one ceasing from men." In 2 Kings xv. 5; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21, a house in which lepers dwell is called a "house of liberty," _i.e._, of separation from all human society; compare the expression "free among the dead," in Ps. lxxxviii. 6. Lepers were considered as dead persons. Uzziah, while in his leprosy, was, according to the passage in Chronicles already cited, cut off from the house of the Lord, and forfeited his place there, where all the servants of the Lord dwell with Him. To leprosy, the term [Hebrew: ngve] in ver. 4 likewise points. _Beck's_ objection: "The point in question here is not that which the unfortunate man does but that which others do in reference to him," is based upon a misconception. Neither the one nor the other is spoken of The comparative [Hebrew: k] must not be overlooked. The comparison with the leper, the culminating point of all contempt, is highly suitable to the parallelism with [Hebrew: nbzh]. Ordinarily [Hebrew: mstr] is now understood as a _substantivum verbale_: "He was like hiding of the face before Him," _i.e._, like a thing or person before which or whom we hide our face, because we cannot bear its horrible and disgusting appearance. But with one before whom we hide our face, the Servant of God could not be compared; the comparison would, in that case, be weak.--[Hebrew: nbzh] is not the 1st pers. Fut. but Partic. Niph., "despised."--The close of the verse returns to its beginning, after having been, in the middle, established and made good.

The second subdivision from ver. 4 to ver. 7 furnishes us with the key to the sufferings of the Servant of God described in what precedes, by pointing to their _vicarious character_, to which (ver. 7) the conduct of the Servant of God under His sufferings corresponds.

Ver. 4. "_But our diseases He bore, and our pains He took upon Him: and we esteemed Him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted._"

The words [Hebrew: Hli] and [Hebrew: mkab] of the preceding verse here appear again. He was laden with disease and pains; but these sufferings, the wages of sin, were not inflicted upon Him on account [Pg 282] of His own sins, but on account of our sins, so that the horror falls back upon ourselves, and is changed into loving admiration of Him. _Beck_ remarks: "Properly speaking, they had not become sick or unfortunate at all; this had _a priori_ been rendered impossible by the vicarious suffering of the Son of God; but since they deserved the sickness and calamity, the averting of it might be considered as a healing." But this view is altogether the result of embarrassment. Disease is the inseparable companion of sin. If the persons speaking are subject to the latter, the disease cannot be considered as an evil merely threatening them. If they speak of their diseases, we think, in the first instance, of sickness by which they have already been seized; and the less obvious sense ought to have been expressly indicated. In the same manner, the healing also suggests hurts already existing. But quite decisive is ver. 6, where the miserable condition clearly appears to have already taken place.--According to the opinion of several interpreters, by diseases, all inward and outward sufferings are figuratively designated; according to the opinion of others, _spiritual_ diseases, sins. But even from the relation of this verse to the preceding, it appears that here, in the first instance, diseases and pains, in the ordinary sense, are spoken of; just as the blind and deaf in chap. xxxv. are, in the first instance, they who are naturally blind and deaf.--Disease and pain here cannot be spoken of in a sense different from that in which it is spoken of there. Diseases, in the sense of _sins_, do not occur at all in the Old Testament. The circumstance that in the parallel passage, vers. 11 and 12, the bearing of the _transgressions_ and _sins_ is spoken of, does not prove anything. The Servant of God bears them also in their consequences, in their punishments, among which sickness and pains occupy a prominent place. Of the bearing of outward sufferings, [Hebrew: nwa Hli] occurs in Jer. x. 19 also. If the words are rightly understood, then at once, light falls upon the apostolic quotation in Matt. viii. 16, 17: [Greek: pantas tous kakôs echontas etherapeusen, hopôs plêrôthê to rhêthen dia Êsaiou tou prophêtou legontos. autos tas astheneias hêmôn elabe kai tas nosous ebastase]; and this deserves a consideration so much the more careful, that the Evangelist here intentionally deviates from the Alexandrine version ( [Greek: houtos tas hamartias hêmôn pherei kai peri hêmôn odunatai]). In doing so, "we [Pg 283] do not give an external meaning to that which is to be understood spiritually;" but when the Saviour healed the sick, He fulfilled the prophecy before us in its most proper and obvious sense. And this fulfilment is even now going on. For him who stands in a living faith in Christ, sickness, pain, and, in general all sorrow, have lost their sting. But it has not yet appeared what we shall be, and we have still to expect the complete fulfilment. In the Kingdom of glory, sickness and pain shall have altogether disappeared.--Some interpreters would translate [Hebrew: nwa] by "to take away;" but even the parallel [Hebrew: sbl] is conclusive against such a view; and, farther, the ordinary use of [Hebrew: nwa] of the bearing of the punishment of sin, _e.g._, Ezek. xviii. 19; Num. xiv. 33; Lev. v. 1, xx. 17. But of conclusive weight is the connection with the preceding verse, where the Servant of God appears as the intimate acquaintance of sickness, as the man of pains. He has, accordingly, not only _put away_ our sicknesses and pains, but He has, as our substitute, _taken them upon Him_; He has healed us by His having himself become sick in our stead. This could be done only by His having, in the first instance, as a substitute, appropriated our _sins_, of which the sufferings are the consequence; compare 1 Peter ii. 24: [Greek: hos tas hamartias hêmôn autos anênenken en tô sômati autou epi to xulon.]--_Plagued_, _smitten of God_, _afflicted_, are expressions which were commonly used in reference to the visitation of sinful men. It is especially in the word _plagued_, which is intentionally placed first, that the reference to a self-deserved suffering is strongly expressed, compare Ps. lxxiii. 14: "For all the day long am I _plagued_, and my chastisement is new every morning." Of Uzziah, visited on account of his sin, it is said in 2 Kings xv. 5: "And the Lord inflicted a _plague_ upon the king, and he was a leper unto the day of his death." [Hebrew: nge] "plague" is in Lev. xiii., as it were, _nomen proprium_ for the leprosy, which in the law is so distinctly designated as a punishment of sin.--[Hebrew: hkh] too, is frequently used of the infliction of divine punishments and judgments. Num. xiv. 12; Deut. xxviii. 22. The people did not err in considering the suffering as a punishment of sin, but only in considering it as a punishment for the sins committed by the Servant of God himself. According to the view of both the Old and New Testament, every suffering is [Pg 284] punishment. The suffering of a perfect saint, however, involves a contradiction, unless it be vicarious. By his completely stepping out of the territory of sin, he must also step out of the territory of evil, which, according to the doctrine established at the very threshold of revelation, is the wages of sin, for otherwise God would not be holy and just. Hence, as regards the Servant of God, we have only the alternatives: either His sinlessness must be doubted, or the vicarious nature of His sufferings must be acknowledged. The persons speaking took up, at first, the former position; after their eyes had been opened, they chose the latter.

Ver. 5, "_And He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed._"

[Hebrew: hva] "He" stands in front, in order emphatically to point out Him who suffered as a substitute, in contrast to those who had really deserved the punishment: "He, on account of our transgressions." There is no reason for deviating:, in the case of [Hebrew: Hll], from the original signification "to pierce," and adopting the general signification "to wound;" the LXX. [Greek: etraumatisthê]. _The chastisement of our peace_ is the chastisement whereby peace is acquired for us. Peace stands as an individualizing designation of salvation; in the world of contentions, peace is one of the highest blessings. Natural man is on all sides surrounded by enemies; [Greek: dikaiôthentes ek pisteôs eirênên echomen pros ton Theo dia tou kuriou hêmôn Iêsou Christou], Rom. v. 1, and peace with God renders all other enemies innocuous, and at last removes them altogether. The peace is inseparable from the substitution. If the Servant of God has borne our sins, He has thereby, at the same time, acquired peace; for, just as He enters into our guilt, so we now enter into His reward. The justice of God has been satisfied through Him; and thus an open way has been prepared for His bestowing peace and salvation. The _chastisement_ can, according to the context, be only an actual one, only such as consists in the infliction of some _evil_. It is in misconception and narrowness of view that the explanation of the followers of _Menke_ originated: "The instruction for our peace is with Him." This explanation militates against the whole context, in which not the _doctrine_ but the _suffering_ of the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelism [Pg 285] with: "By His wounds we are healed;" against the [Hebrew: eliv], "upon Him," which, according to a comparison with: "He bore our disease, and took upon Him our pains," must indicate that the punishment lay upon the sufferer like a pressing _burden_. It is only from aversion to the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, that we can account for the fact, that that doctrine could be so generally received by that theological school. More candid are the rationalistic interpreters. Thus _Hitzig_ remarks: "_The chastisement of our peace_ is not a chastisement which would have been salutary for our morality, nor such as might serve for our salvation, but according to the parallelism, such as has served for our salvation, and has allowed us to come off safe and unhurt." _Stier_, too, endeavours to explain the "chastisement of our peace," in an artificial way. According to him, there is always implied in [Hebrew: mvsr] the tendency towards setting right and healing the chastised one himself; but wherever this word occurs, a retributive pain and destruction are never spoken of But, in opposition to this view, there is the fact that [Hebrew: mvsr] does not by any means rarely occur as signifying the punishments which are inflicted upon stiff-necked obduracy, and which bear a destructive character, and which, therefore, cannot be derived from the principle of correction, but from that of retribution only. Thus, _e.g._, in Prov. xv. 10: "Bad _chastisement_ shall be to those that forsake the way, and he that hateth chastisement shall die," on which _Michaelis_ remarks: "_In antanaclasi ad correptionem amicam et paternum, mortem et mala quaelibet inferens, in ira_," Ps. vi. 2. Of destructive punishment, too, the verb is used in Jer. ii. 19. But one does not at all see how the idea of "setting right" should be suitable here; for surely, as regards the Servant of God himself, the absolutely Righteous, the suffering here has the character of chastisement. It is not the mere suffering, but the chastisement, which is upon Him; but that necessarily requires that the punishment should proceed from the principle of _retribution_, and that the Servant of God stands forth as our Substitute.--[Hebrew: nrpa], Preter. Niph., hence "healing has been bestowed upon us;"--[Hebrew: rpa] with [Hebrew: l], in the signification "to bring healing," occurs also in chap. vi. 10, but nowhere else. The healing is an individualising designation of deliverance from the punishments of sin, called forth by the [Pg 286] circumstance that disease occupied so prominent a place among them, and had therefore been so prominently brought forward in what precedes. In harmony with the Apostolic quotation, the expression clearly shows that the punitive sufferings were already lying upon the persons speaking; that by the Substitute they were not by any means delivered from the future evils, but that the punishment, the inseparable companion of sin, already existed, and was taken away by Him.

Ver. 6. "_All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath made the iniquities of us all to fall upon Him._"

_Calvin_ remarks: "In order the more strongly to impress upon the hearts of men the benefits of Christ's death, the Prophet shews how necessary is that healing which was mentioned before. There is herd an elegant antithesis; for, in ourselves we are scattered, but, in Christ collected; by nature we go astray and are carried headlong to destruction,--in Christ we find the way in which we are led to the gate of salvation; our iniquities cover and oppress us,--but they are transferred to Christ by whom we are unburdened."--_All we_--in the first instance, members of the covenant-people,--not, however, as contrasted with the rest of mankind, but as partaking in the general human destiny.--_We have turned every one to his own way_; we walked through life solitary, forsaken, miserable, separated from God and the good Shepherd, and deprived of His pastoral care. According to _Hofmann_, the going astray designates the _liability_ to punishment, but not the misery of the speakers; and the words also: "We have turned," &c., mean, according to him, that they chose their own ways, but not that they walked sorrowful or miserable. But the ordinary use of the image militates against that view. In Ps. cxix. 176: "I go astray like a lost sheep, seek thy servant," the going astray is a figurative designation of being destitute of salvation. The misery of the condition is indicated by the image of the scattered flock, also in 1 Kings xxii. 17: "I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills as sheep that have not a shepherd." _Michaelis_ pertinently remarks: "Nothing is so miserable as sheep without a shepherd,--a thing which Scripture so often repeats, Num. xxvii. 17," &c. As a commentary upon our passage, Ezek. xxxiv. 4-6 may serve; [Pg 287] and according to that passage we shall be compelled to think of their being destitute of the care of a shepherd: "And they are scattered, because there is no Shepherd; and they become meat to all the beasts of the field. My sheep wander on all the mountains, and on every high hill, and over the whole land my sheep are scattered, and there is none that careth for them, or seeketh them." The point of comparison is very distinctly stated in Matt. ix. 36 also: [Greek: idôn de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri autôn, hoti êsan eskulmenoi kai erhrimenoi hôsei probata mê echonta poimena.] Without doubt, turning to one's own ways is sinful, comp. chap. lvi. 11; but here it is not so much the aspect of sin, as that of misery, which is noticed. As the chief reason of the sheep's wandering and going astray, the bad condition of the shepherd must be considered, comp. Jer. l. 6: "Perishing sheep were my people; their shepherds led them astray," John x. 8: [Greek: pantes hosoi pro emou êlthon, kleptai eisi kai lêstai.]--[Hebrew: pge] with [Hebrew: b] signifies "to hit;" hence _Hiphil_, "to cause to hit." The iniquities of the whole community _hit_ the Servant of God in their punishments; but according to the biblical view, their punishments can come upon Him only as such, only by His coming forward as a substitute for sinners, and not because He suffers for the guilt of others to which He remained a stranger. By this throwing the guilt upon the Servant of God, the condition of being without a shepherd is _done_ away with, the flock is gathered from its scattered condition. The wall of separation which was raised by its guilt, and which separated it from God, the fountain of salvation, is now removed by His substitution, and the words: "The Lord is my Shepherd," now become a truth, comp. John x. 4.

Ver. 7. "_He was oppressed, and when He was plagued, He does not open His mouth, like a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a sheep which is dumb before her shearers, and He does not open his mouth._"

In these words, we have a description of the manner in which the Servant of God _bore_ such sufferings. It flows necessarily from the circumstance, that it was a vicarious suffering. The substitution implies that He took them upon Him spontaneously; and this has patience for its companion. First, the contents of ver. 6 are once more summed up in the word [Hebrew: ngw], "He was oppressed:" then, this condition of the Servant [Pg 288] of God is brought into connection with His _conduct_, which, only in this connection, appears in its full majesty.--[Hebrew: ngw] is the Preterite in _Niphal_, and not, as _Beck_ thinks, 1st pers. Fut. _Kal_. For the Future would be here unusual; the verb has elsewhere the Future in _o_; the suffix is wanting, and the sense which then arises suits only the untenable supposition that, in vers. 1-10, the _Gentiles_ are speaking. The _Niphal_ occurs in 1 Sam. xiii. 6, of Israel oppressed by the Philistines; and in 1 Sam. xiv. 24, of those borne down by heavy toil and fatigue. [Hebrew: ngw] and [Hebrew: nenh] "to be humbled, oppressed, abused," do not, in themselves essentially differ; it is only on account of the context, and the contrast implied in it, that the same condition is once more designated by a word which is nearly synonymous. The words "and He" separate [Hebrew: nenh] from what precedes, and connect it with what follows. The explanation: "He was oppressed, but He suffered patiently," has this opposed to it, that the two _Niphals_, following immediately upon one another, cannot here stand in a different meaning. The idea of patience would here not be a collateral, but the main idea, and hence, could not stand without a stronger designation.--In [Hebrew: iptH], the real Future has taken the place of the ideal Past; it shows that the preceding Preterites are to be considered as prophetical, and that, in point of fact, the suffering of the Servant of God is no less future than His glorification. The _lamb_ points back to Exod. xii. 3, and designates Christ as the true paschal lamb. With a reference to the verse under consideration, John the Baptist calls Christ the Lamb of God, John i. 29; comp. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Acts viii. 32-35. But since it is not the vicarious character of Christ's sufferings which here, in the first instance, comes into consideration, but His patience under them, the lamb is associated with the female sheep, and that not in relation to her slayers, but to her shearers. The last words: "And He does not open His mouth," are not to be referred to the lamb, as some think, (even the circumstance that the preceding [Hebrew: rHl] is a feminine noun militates against this view), but, like the first: "He does not open His mouth," to the Servant of God. It is an expressive repetition, and one which is intended to direct attention to this feature; comp. the close of ver. 3; Gen. xlix. 4: Judges v. 16. The fulfilment is shown by 1 Pet. ii. 23: [Pg 289] [Greek: hos loidoroumenos ouk anteloidorei, paschôn ouk êpeilei, paredidou de tô krinonti dikaiôs]; and likewise Matt. xxvii. 12-14: [Greek: kai en tô katêgoreisthai auton hupo tôn archiereôn kai tôn presbuterôn ouen apekrinato. Tote legei autô ho Pilatos. ouk akoueis posasou katamarturousi; kai ouk apekrithê autô pros ouden hen rhêma, hôste thaumazein ton hêgemona lian.] Comp. xxvi. 62; Mark xv. 5; Luke xxiii. 9; John xix. 9.

The third subdivision of the principal portion, vers. 8-10, describes _the reward of the Servant of God_, by expanding the words: "Kings shall shut their mouths on account of Him," in chap. lii. 15, and "He shall be exalted," in ver. 13.

Ver. 8. "_From oppression and from judgment He was taken, and His generation who can think it out; for He was cut of out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._"

God--such is the sense--takes Him to himself from heavy oppression, and He who apparently was destroyed without leaving a trace, receives an infinitely numerous generation (compare John xii. 32: [Greek: kagô hean hupsôthô ek tês gês pantas helkusô pros emauton]), as a deserved reward for having, by His violent death, atoned for the sins of His people, delivered them from destruction, and acquired them for His property.--[Hebrew: ecr] "oppression," as Ps. cvii. 39, properly, according to the signification of the verb: "Shutting up," "restraining," "hindering." From what goes before, where the evils from which the Servant of God is here delivered are described more in detail, it appears that here we have not to think of a prison properly so called; for there, it is not a prison, but abuse and oppression which are spoken of.--[Hebrew: mwpT] is commonly referred to the judgment which the enemies of the Servant of God passed upon Him, The premised [Hebrew: ecr] then furnishes the distinct qualification of the judgment, shows that that which, in a formal point of view, presents itself as a judicial proceeding, is, in point of fact, heavy oppression. But, at the same time, [Hebrew: mwpT] serves as a limitation for [Hebrew: ecr]. We learn from it that the hatred of the enemies moved within the limits of judicial proceedings,--just as it happened in the history of Christ. But behind the human judgment, the _divine_ is concealed, Jer. i. 16; Ezek. v. 8; Ps. cxliii. 2. This is shown by what precedes, where the suffering of the Servant of God is so emphatically and repeatedly designated as the punishment of sin inflicted upon [Pg 290] Him by God.--[Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN] "to be taken away from;" according to _Stier_: "taken away from suffering, being delivered from it by God's having taken Him to himself, to the land of eternal bliss." This view, according to which the words refer to the glorification of the Servant of God, has been adopted by the Church. It is adopted by the Vulgate: "_De angustia et judicio sublatus est_;" by _Jerome_, who says on this passage: "From tribulation and judgment He ascended, as a conqueror, to the Father;" and by _Michaelis_ who thus interprets it: "He was taken away, and received at the right hand of the Majesty." By several interpretations, the words are still referred to the state of humiliation of the Servant of God: "_Through_ oppression and judgment He was _dragged to execution_." But the Prophet has already, in ver. 3, finished the description of the mere sufferings of the Servant of God--vers. 4-7 exhibit the cause of His sufferings and His conduct under them; [Hebrew: lqH] cannot, by itself, signify "to be dragged to execution"--in that case, as in Prov. xxiv. 11, "to death" would have been added; [Hebrew: mN] must be taken in the signification, "from," "out of," as in the subsequent [Hebrew: marC], compare 2 Kings iii. 9, where [Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN] signifies "to take from." In the passage under consideration, as well as in those two passages which refer to the ascension of Elijah, there is a distinct allusion to Gen.