????? always means "to act wisely" (LXX. s???se?; _Aquil. Sym._: ?p?s?????s??seta?), never "to be successful" (the Chaldean, whom most of the modern interpreters follow, renders it by ????), and this ascertained sense (comp. Remarks on Jer. iii. 15; xxiii. 5, where the verb is used of the Messiah, just as it is here), must here be maintained so much the more, that our pa.s.sage evidently refers to David, the former servant of G.o.d. Of him it is said in 1 Sam. xviii.
14, 15: "And David was acting wisely in all his ways, and the Lord was with him. And Saul saw that he was acting very wisely, and was afraid of him;" comp. 1 Kings ii. 3, where David says to Solomon: "And keep the charge of the Lord thy G.o.d ... in order [Pg 265] that thou mayest act wisely in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself;" Ps. ci. 2, where David, speaking in the name of his family, says: "I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way;" and 2 Kings xviii. 7, where it is said of Hezekiah: "And the Lord was with him, and whithersoever he went forth, he acted wisely." According to these fundamental and parallel pa.s.sages, the expression, "He shall act wisely" refers to the administration of government, and is equivalent to: He shall rule wisely like his ancestor David. _Stier_ is wrong in opposing the view, that the Messiah here presents himself as King. He says: "The King has here stepped behind the Prophet, Witness, Martyr, Saviour;" but in chap. liii. 12, the royal office surely comes out with sufficient distinctness. We must never forget that the different offices of Christ are intimately connected with one another by the unity of the person. The _prosperity and success_ which the Servant of G.o.d enjoys, are first brought before us and detailed in what follows; and appear, just as in the fundamental pa.s.sages quoted, as the consequence of acting wisely: "My Servant shall, after having, through the deepest humiliation, attained to dominion, administer it well, and thereby attain to the highest glory." To the words: "He shall act wisely" correspond, afterwards, the words: "The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper by His hand," chap. liii. 10. The fact that a person acts wisely is, in a twofold aspect, a fruit of his connection with G.o.d: _first_, because G.o.d is the source and fountain of all wisdom, and, _secondly_, because from G.o.d the blessing proceeds which always accompanies his doings. The unG.o.dly is by G.o.d involved in circ.u.mstances which, notwithstanding all his wisdom, make him appear as a fool.
Compare only chap. xix. 11: "The princes of Zoan become fools, the counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish; how can ye say unto Pharaoh: a son of the wise am I, a (spiritual) son of the (wise) kings of ancient times?" comp. ver. 13; Job xii. 17, 20; Eccles.
ix. 11. In the second clause the Prophet puts together the verbs which denote elevation, and still adds ??? "very" in order most emphatically to point out the glory of the exaltation of the Servant of G.o.d.
Ver. 14. "_As many were shocked at thee--so marred from man was His look, and His form from the sons of man_--Ver. 15. _So shall He sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their_ [Pg 266] _mouths on account of Him, for they who had not been told, they see, and they who did not hear, they perceive._"
Ver. 14 contains the _protasis_, ver. 15 the _apodosis_. The former describes the deep humiliation, the latter the highest glorification of the Servant of G.o.d. The _so_ in ver. 14 begins a parenthesis, in which the reason why many were shocked is stated, and which goes on to the end of the verse. In keeping with the dramatic character of the prophetic discourse, the Lord addresses His Servant in ver. 14: "At thee;" while, in ver. 15, He speaks of Him in the third person: "He shall sprinkle;" "on account of _Him_" This change has been occasioned by the parenthetical clause which contains a remark of the Prophet, and in which, therefore, the Servant of G.o.d could not but be spoken of in the third person. _Havernick_ and _Stier_ refuse to admit the existence of a parenthesis. Their reasons: "Parentheses are commonly an ill-invented expedient only," and: "It is not likely that the same particle should have a different signification in these two clauses following immediately the one upon the other," are not entirely dest.i.tute of force, but are far-outweighed by counter-arguments. They say that the _apodosis_ begins with the first ??, and that in ver. 15 a second _apodosis_ follows. But no tolerable thought comes out in this way;--it is hard to co-ordinate two _apodoses_,--and the transition from the 2d to the 3d person remains unaccounted for. ??? "to be desolated" is then transferred to the spiritual desolation and devastation, and receives the signification "to be horrified," "to be shocked."--Who the many are that are shocked and offended at the miserable appearance of the Servant of G.o.d, appears from chap. xlix. 4, according to which the opposition to the Servant of G.o.d has its seat among the covenant people; farther, from the contrast in ver. 15 of the chapter before us, according to which the respectful surrender belongs to the _Gentiles_; and farther, from chap. liii. 1, where the unbelief of the former covenant-people is complained of; from vers. 2-4, where even the believers from among Israel complain that they had had difficulty in surmounting the offence of the Cross. ????, properly "corruption," stands here as _abstractum pro concreto_, in the signification, "corrupted," "marred." As to its form, it is in the _status constructus_ which, in close connections, can stand even [Pg 267] before Prepositions. From the corresponding ??? ????? in chap.
liii. 3, it appears that the Preposition stands here only for the sake of distinctness, and might as well have been omitted. The ?? serves for designating the distance, "from man," "from the sons of men," so that He is no more a man, does no more belong to the number of the sons of men. The correctness of this explanation appears from chap. liii. 3, and Ps. xxii. 7: "I am a worm and no man." As regards the sense of the whole parenthesis, many interpreters remark, that we must not stop at the bodily disfiguration of the Servant of G.o.d, but that the expression must, at the same time, be understood figuratively. Thus, Luther says: "The Prophet does not speak of the form of Christ as to His person, but of the political and royal form of a Ruler, who is to become an earthly King, and does not appear in royal form, but as the meanest of all servants; so that no more despised man than He has been seen in the world." But the Prophet evidently speaks, in the first instance, of the bodily appearance only; and we can the less think of a figurative sense, that bodily disfiguration forms the climax of misery, and that, in this _part_, the _whole_ of the miserable condition is delineated.
Even the severe inward sufferings are a matter of course, if the outward ones have risen to such a pitch. How both of these go hand in hand is seen from Ps. xxii. These interpreters are, farther, wrong in this respect, that they refer the pretended figurative expression solely to the lowliness and humility of the Messiah, and not, at the same time, to His _sufferings_ also. Thus, among the ancient interpreters, it was viewed by _Jerome_: "The horrid appearance of His form is not thereby indicated, but that He came in humility and poverty;" and among recent interpreters by _Martini_: "The sense of the pa.s.sage does not properly refer to the deformity of the face, but to the whole external weak, poor, and humble condition." But, for that, the expression is by far too strong. Mere lowliness is no object of horror (comp. 1 Cor. i. 23, according to which it is the _Cross_ which offends the Jews); it does not produce a deformity of the countenance; it cannot produce the effect that the Servant of G.o.d should, as it were, cease to be a man. All this suggests an unspeakable _suffering_ of the Servant of G.o.d, and that, moreover, a suffering which, in the first instance, [Pg 268] manifested itself upon His own holy body.
_Farther_--We must also take into consideration that the _sprinkling_, in ver. 15, has for its background the shedding of blood, and is the fruit of it, at first concealed. If any doubt should yet remain, it would be removed by the subsequent detailed representation of that which is here given in outline merely. The sole reason of that narrow view is, that interpreters did not understand the fundamental relation of the section under consideration to the subsequent section; that they did not perceive that, here, we have in a complete sketch what there is given in detail and expansion.--Ver. 15. The verb ??? occurs in very many pa.s.sages, and signifies in _Hiphil_, everywhere, "to sprinkle." It is especially set apart and used for the sprinkling with the blood of atonement, and the water of purification. When "the anointed priest"
had sinned, he took of the blood of the _sacrifice_, and _sprinkled_ it before the vail of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 6; comp. v. 16, 17. The high priest had, every year, on the great day of atonement, to sprinkle the _blood_ before the Ark of the Covenant, in order to obtain forgiveness for the people. Lev. xvi. 14, comp. also vers. 18, 19: "And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it (the altar) with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." In the same manner the verb is used of the sprinkling of blood upon the healed leper, Lev. xiv. 7, and frequently. According to Numb.
xix. 19, the _clean_ person shall _sprinkle_ upon the unclean, on the third day, and on the seventh day, "with the water in which are the ashes of the red heifer" when any one has become unclean by touching a dead body. The outward material purification frequently serves in the Old Testament to denote the spiritual purification. Thus, _e.g._, in Ps. i. 9: "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;" Ezek. x.x.xvi.
25: "And I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness." In all those pa.s.sages there lies, everywhere, at the foundation an allusion to the Levitical purifications (the two last quoted especially refer to Numb. xix.); and this allusion is by no means so to be understood, as if he who makes the allusion were drawing the material into the spiritual sphere. On the contrary, he uses as a figure that which is, in the law, used symbolically. All the laws of purification in the Pentateuch [Pg 269] have a symbolical and typical character. That which was done to the outward impurity was, in point of fact, done to the _sin_ which the people of the Old Testament, well versed in the symbolical language, beheld under its image. Hence, here also, the _sprinkling_ has the signification of _cleansing_ from sin.
The expression indicates that Christ is the true High Priest, to whom the ordinary priesthood with its sprinklings typically pointed. The expression is a summary of that which, in the following chapter, we are told regarding the expiation through the suffering and death of the Servant of G.o.d. The words: "When His soul maketh a sin-offering," in ver. 10, and: "He shall justify," in ver. 11, correspond. Among the ancient expositors, this translation is followed by the Syriac and Vulgate, the _asperget_ of which _Jerome_ thus explains: "He shall sprinkle many nations, cleansing them by His blood, and in baptism consecrating them to the service of G.o.d." In the New Testament, it is alluded to in several pa.s.sages. Thus, in 1 Pet. i. 2, where the Apostle speaks of the ?a?t?s?? a?at?? ??s?? ???st??. Farther, in Heb. x. 22: ???a?t?s???? t?? ?a?d?a? ?p? s??e?d?se?? p??????; xii. 24: ?a? a?at?
?a?t?s?? ??e?tt?? ?a????t? pa?? t?? ?e?, and also in chap. ix. 13, 14. Among Christian interpreters, this view was always the prevailing one, was indeed the view held by the Church. _Schroder observ. ad origin. Hebr._ c. viii. -- 10, raised some objections which were eagerly laid hold of, and increased by the rationalistic interpreters. Even some sound orthodox expositors allowed themselves to be thereby dazzled. _Stier_ declares "that, for this time, he must take the part of modern Exegesis against the prevailing tradition of the Church." Yet his disrelish for the doctrine of the atonement held by the Church has no doubt exercised a considerable influence in this matter; and _Hofmann_, too, in so decidedly rejecting this explanation, which rests on such strong arguments, and is not touched by any weighty counter-arguments, seems not to have been guided by exegetical reasons only. But let us submit these objections to a closer examination. 1.
"The verb ought not to be construed with the Accusative of the thing to be sprinkled, but with ??." _Reinke_ (in his Monograph on Is. liii.) brings forward, against this objection, the pa.s.sage Lev. iv. 16, 17; but he is wrong in this, inasmuch as ?? is there not the [Pg 270] sign of the Accusative, but a Preposition. ?? ??? in the signification "before," is, elsewhere also, very frequently used. But even _Gesenius_ is compelled to agree with _Simonis_.[2] and to acknowledge that, in the proper name ???? the verb is connected with an Accusative. The deviation is there still greater, inasmuch as the _Kal_ is, at the same time, used transitively. But even apart from that, such a deviation cannot appear strange. It has an a.n.a.logy in chap. liii. 11, where ?????, which everywhere else is construed with the Accusative, is followed by ?; and likewise in ???, followed by ? in chap. liii. 5. The signification of the verb, in such cases, undergoes a slight modification. ??? with ?? means "to sprinkle;" with the Accusative, "to sprinkle upon." This modification of the meaning has the a.n.a.logy of other languages in its favour. In the Ethiopic, the verb ???, which corresponds to the Hebrew ???, is used of the sprinkling of both persons and things; Heb. ix. 19, xi. 28; Ps. li. 9. In Latin, we may say: _spargere aquam_, but also _spargere corpus aqua_; _aspergere quid alicui_, but also _re aliquem_, _conspergere_, _perspergere_, _respergere quem_. "Why should not this be allowed to the Jews also,"--remarks _Kocher_--"who have to make up for the defect of compound verbs by the varied use of simple verbs?" But the Prophet had a special reason, in the liberty specially afforded by the higher style, for deviating from the ordinary connection. The ?? had to be avoided, because, had it been put, the perception of the correspondence of the subsequent ???? with the ????, in ver. 14, would have become more difficult.--2. It is a.s.serted that it is against the connection; that the contrast to ??? induces us to expect something corresponding.
_Beck_ says: "A change in those who formerly abhorred the Servant is to be expressed here, not _a deed by the Servant himself_." If there were here, indeed, a contrast intended to the many who formerly were shocked, we might answer that, indirectly, the words: "He shall sprinkle," suggest, indeed, an opposite conduct of the "many Gentiles."
No one is cleansed by the Servant of G.o.d, who does not allow himself to be cleansed by [Pg 271] Him. But no one will desire to be cleansed by Him, who does not put his whole trust in Him, who does not recognize Him as his King and Lord. To the contempt and horror with which the Jews shrink back from the Messiah in His humiliation, would thus be opposed the faithful, humble confidence, with which the heathens draw near to the glorified Messiah. But the fact that the real contrast to the ???? is not ???, but rather ?????, is clearly shown by ????, which corresponds with ????. The ??? corresponds rather to: "He was disfigured." Just as this states the cause of their being shocked, so in: "He shall sprinkle," the cause of the shutting of the mouth is stated. This is also seen from a comparison of chap. liii. 3, 4. His sufferings appeared formerly as the proof that He was hated by G.o.d. Now that the vicarious value of His suffering manifests itself, it becomes the reason of humble, respectful submission. Just as, formerly, many were shocked at Him, because he was so disfigured, so, now, even kings shall shut their mouth at Him on account of His atonement. Moreover, one does not exactly see how this reason could be brought forward, as, in a formal point of view, there is, at all events, "a deed by the Servant himself" before us, in whatever way we may view the ???.--3.
"If _sprinkling_ were meant to be equivalent to cleansing by blood, the matter of purification could not be omitted. If it were objected to this, that the noun "blood" might easily be supplied from the verb"s being ordinarily used of cleansing with blood, the objection would be of no weight, inasmuch as sprinkling was done not only with blood, but also with water and oil." But the sprinkling with _oil_, denoting sanctification, appears only quite isolated, and has for its foundation the sprinkling with blood, comp. Exod. xxix. 21: "And thou shalt take of the blood which is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and he shall be hallowed." The sprinkling with _water_ has likewise the shedding of blood for its foundation. It was done with such water only, as had in it the ashes of the sin-offering of the red heifer. But the Prophet has certainly on purpose made no express mention of the blood, because that water, too, should be included. This fact, that the sprinkling here comprehends both, was perceived by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in chap. ix. 13, 14: e? ??? t? a?a [Pg 272] ta???? ?a? t????? ?a? sp?d?? da??e??
?a?t????sa t??? ?e?????????? ?????e? p??? t?? t?? sa???? ?a?a??t?ta?
????? t? a?a t?? ???st?? ... ?a?a??e? t?? s??e?d?s?? ??? ?p? ?e????
????? e?? t? ?at?e?e?? ?e? ???t?. The defilement by dead bodies, against which the water of purification was specially used, is the most significant symbol of sinners and sins.--4. "It is, in general, not probable that the Servant of G.o.d, who farther down is described as a sacrificial beast (!),--who, by taking upon Himself the sins of His people, dies for them, should here appear as the High Priest justifying them." Thus _Umbreit_ argues. But in opposition to this view, it is sufficient to refer to: "He shall justify," in chap. liii. 11, which is parallel to "He shall sprinkle." That which, in the typical sacrifices, is separated, is, in the ant.i.typical, most closely connected. Even at the very first beginnings of sacred history, it was established for all times, that the difference between him who offers up, and that which is offered up, should not go beyond the territory of animal sacrifice. But there is the less ground for setting aside the reference to the priestly office of the Messiah, that, even before Isaiah, David, in Ps.
cx. 4, designates Christ as the true High Priest on account of the atonement to be made by Him; and, after Isaiah, Zechariah says in chap.
vi. 13: "And He sitteth and ruleth upon the throne, and He is a Priest upon His throne."--It has now become current to derive ??? from ??? in the signification "to leap"--"He shall cause to leap. This explanation made its appearance at first in a very cautious way." _Martini_ says: "I myself feel how very far from a right and sure interpretation that is, which I am now, but very timidly, to advance, regarding the sense of the received reading ???." By and by, however, expositors hardened themselves against the decisive objections which stand in the way of it. These objections are the following. 1. The Hebrew _usus loquendi_ is in ??? so sure, that we are not ent.i.tled to take the explanation from the Arabic. The verb is, in Hebrew, never used except of _fluids_.
In _Kal_, it does not mean "to leap," but "to spatter," Lev. vi. 20 (27): "And upon whose garment is _spattered_ of the blood;" 2 Kings ix. 33; Is. lxiii. 5. In _Hiphil_, it is set apart and used exclusively for the holy sprinklings; and the more frequently it occurs in this signification, the less are we at liberty to deviate from it. 2. "He shall make to leap" would be far too indefinite,--a circ.u.mstance [Pg 273] which appears from the vague and arbitrary conjectures of the supporters of this view. _Gesenius_, in his Commentary, _Stier_, and others, think of a leaping for joy, in support of which they have quoted the _Kamus_, according to which the verb is used of wanton a.s.ses! According to _Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_, _Hofmann_, and others, the Gentiles are to leap up, in order to show their _reverence_ for the Servant of G.o.d. According to _Hitzig_ and others, it is to leap for _astonishment_, while, according to _Umbreit_ and others, it is for _joyful admiration_. One sees that the mere "He shall make to leap" is in itself too meaningless; and interpreters are obliged to make the best addition which they can.--3. According to this explanation, no cause is a.s.signed by which the homage of the Gentiles is called forth; and that cause can the less be omitted, that the horror of the Jews is traced back to its cause. The parenthesis in ver. 14 lacks its ant.i.thesis; and that this ant.i.thesis must lie in ???, is rendered probable even by the circ.u.mstance, that this word signifies, in a formal point of view, something which the Servant of G.o.d does, and not something which the Gentiles do, while we should, by the ant.i.thesis to ????, be led to expect just this.[3]--In the _protasis_, the discourse is only of many; here, it is of many nations (_Gousset_: "It is emphatic, so that it comprehends all, and denotes, at the same time, that they are numerous"), and of kings. This is quite natural; for it was only members of the covenant-people who felt shocked, while the reverence is felt by the whole Gentile world.--The _shutting of the mouth_ occurs elsewhere, too, repeatedly, as a sign of reverence and humble submission. The reference of ???? to ????, shows that _Ewald_ is wrong in explaining it by "besides Him." Since the preceding ??
designated the object of the horror,--the substratum of it--it must here, too, designate the substratum of the shutting of the mouth, and "over Him," be equivalent to: "on account of Him," "out of reverence for Him."--In the exposition of the last words, the old translations differ. We may explain them either: "They to whom it had not been [Pg 274] told, see;" thus the LXX.: ??? ??? ???????? pe?? a?t??, ????ta?, ?a? ?? ??? ?????as?, s???s??s?, whom Paul follows in Rom. xv. 21. (In that context, however, the difference of the two explanations is of no consequence; the pa.s.sage would be equally suitable, even according to the other interpretation.) Or, we may explain them: "That which had not been told them, they see," &c. Thus the other ancient translations explain. According to the first view, the connection would be this: For, in order that ye may not wonder at my speaking to you of nations and kings, they who, &c. According to the second view, the ground of the reverence of the heathen kings and their people is stated. That which formerly had not been told to them, had not been heard by them, is the expiation by the Servant of G.o.d. By Him they receive a blessing not formerly hoped for or expected, and are thereby filled with silent reverence towards the Author of the gift. We decide in favour of the former view, according to which chap. lxvi. 19: "That have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory," is parallel. The contrast, in our verse, to those who did not hear and who now perceive, is, in the subsequent verse, formed by those who do hear, and do not believe. The words: "Who had not been told, who did not hear," refer to the Messianic announcement which was given to Israel only, and from which the Gentiles were excluded.[4]
Upon this sketch, there follows in chap. liii. 1-10, the enlargement.
First, in vers. 1-3 that is expounded which, in ver. 14 had been said of the many being _shocked_, and of the _cause_. The commentary upon ???? "they were shocked," is given in ver. 1: a great portion of the Jews do not believe in the salvation which had appeared. The enlargement of: "so marred," &c., is given in vers. 2, 3. The cause of the [Pg 275] unbelief is, that the glory of the Servant of G.o.d is concealed behind humiliation, misery, and shame.
Chap. liii. 1: "_Who believes that which we hear, and the arm of the Lord, to whom it is revealed?_"
The Prophet, whose spiritual eye is just falling upon the large, the enormously large number of unbelievers, overlooks, at the moment, the other aspect, and, in his grief, expresses that which took place in a large _portion_ only, in such a manner as if it were general. Similar representations we elsewhere frequently meet with, _e.g._, Ps. xiv. 3 (compare my Commentary); Jer. v. 1--????? is commonly understood in the signification, "message" or "discourse." But in favour of the explanation: "That which is heard by us," _q.d._, "that which we hear,"
there is, in the first instance, the _usus loquendi_. The word never occurs in any other than its original signification, "that which is heard," and in the signification, "rumour," which is closely connected with the former. In Isa. xxviii. 9, a pa.s.sage which is most confidently referred to in proof of the signification, _inst.i.tutio_, _doctrina_, ????? is that which the Prophet hears from G.o.d. The mockers who exclaim: "Whom will he make to understand ??????" take, with a sneer, out of his mouth the word upon which chap. xxi. 10: "That which I have heard of the Lord of Hosts, I declare unto you," forms a commentary, ???? too, by which, in the New Testament, ????? is rendered, has not at all the signification, "discourse," "preaching." ???? in Rom. x. 16, 17, is not the preaching, but the hearing, as is shown by the ? ???
????sa? in ver. 18. The ????, according to ver. 17: ? d? ???? d??
??at?? Te??, is the pa.s.sive to the active to the word of G.o.d. "Who believes our ????, our hearing," _i.e._, that which we hear, which is made known to us by the Word of G.o.d. In a pa.s.sive sense, ???? stands likewise in the pa.s.sages 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) ????? ?????, is the word which they heard. That pa.s.sage: ??? ?f???se? ? ????? t?? ????? ??e?????, ?
s???e?e?a????? t? p?ste? t??? ????sas?, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 G.o.d," and ourselves, a ????? 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 G.o.d, 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 d??a?? ?e?? e?? s?t???a? pa?t? t? p?ste???t?. ??? is elsewhere commonly construed with ?? or ?, here with ??. 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 G.o.d"); but it is really seen by those only whose eyes G.o.d opens. The deeds of G.o.d, even the most manifest, always retain the nature of a mystery which remains concealed to the worldly disposition. G.o.d can be recognised only by G.o.d. Of the unG.o.dly 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d-fearing had to overcome, is, for the unG.o.dly, 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 G.o.d, is easily inferred from ???? 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, ???. in chap. xi. 8. ???? elsewhere always signifies "suckling;" comp. here chap. xi. 8. Of the sprout, elsewhere, the feminine ????? 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.: ?? pa?d???. The suffix in ????? "before Him" refers to the immediately preceding ????, 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage, _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 ?????? 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 G.o.d, if they overlooked Him? But it is not possible to adduce any real demonstrative parallel pa.s.sage in support of ??? with the Accusat., without ?, ever having the signification, "to look at," "to consider with delight."
The circ.u.mstance 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 G.o.d 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 h.o.m.o_, 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 G.o.d 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" (??? in the signification "ceasing" in Ps. x.x.xix. 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 pa.s.sages.--"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 pa.s.sive 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 ???? in ver. 10, evidently refers to the ??? in this place. As an acquaintance of disease, the Lord especially showed himself in His _pa.s.sion_. 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." ????? always means "to hide;" the whole phrase occurs in chap. l. 6, in the signification "to hide the face." ???? 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 abas.e.m.e.nt which is expressed by the comparison with the leper, who must hide his face, whom G.o.d has marked._ It is the more natural to suppose this reference to the leper, that probably, the ??? ????? 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. lx.x.xviii. 6. Lepers were considered as dead persons.
Uzziah, while in his leprosy, was, according to the pa.s.sage 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 ???? 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 ? must not be overlooked. The comparison with the leper, the culminating point of all contempt, is highly suitable to the parallelism with ????. Ordinarily ???? 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 G.o.d could not be compared; the comparison would, in that case, be weak.--???? 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 G.o.d described in what precedes, by pointing to their _vicarious character_, to which (ver. 7) the conduct of the Servant of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, and afflicted._"
The words ??? and ???? 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 G.o.d; 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 embarra.s.sment. 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. x.x.xv. 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 circ.u.mstance that in the parallel pa.s.sage, vers. 11 and 12, the bearing of the _transgressions_ and _sins_ is spoken of, does not prove anything. The Servant of G.o.d bears them also in their consequences, in their punishments, among which sickness and pains occupy a prominent place. Of the bearing of outward sufferings, ??? ??? 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: p??ta? t??? ?a??? ????ta? ??e??pe?se?, ?p?? p??????
t? ????? d?? ?sa??? t?? p??f?t?? ?????t?? a?t?? t?? ?s?e?e?a? ???
??ae ?a? t?? ??s??? ??stase; and this deserves a consideration so much the more careful, that the Evangelist here intentionally deviates from the Alexandrine version (??t?? t?? ?a?t?a? ??? f??e? ?a? pe??
??? ?d???ta?). 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 ??? by "to take away;" but even the parallel ??? is conclusive against such a view; and, farther, the ordinary use of ??? 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 G.o.d 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 subst.i.tute, _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 subst.i.tute, appropriated our _sins_, of which the sufferings are the consequence; compare 1 Peter ii. 24: ?? t?? ?a?t?a? ??? a?t??
????e??e? ?? t? s?at? a?t?? ?p? t? ?????.--_Plagued_, _smitten of G.o.d_, _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 chastis.e.m.e.nt 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." ??? "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.--??? 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d would not be holy and just. Hence, as regards the Servant of G.o.d, 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 chastis.e.m.e.nt of our peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed._"
??? "He" stands in front, in order emphatically to point out Him who suffered as a subst.i.tute, 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 ???, from the original signification "to pierce," and adopting the general signification "to wound;" the LXX. ?t?a?at?s??. _The chastis.e.m.e.nt of our peace_ is the chastis.e.m.e.nt 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; d??a?????te? ?? p?ste?? e?????? ???e? p??? t??
?e?? d?? t?? ?????? ??? ??s?? ???st??, Rom. v. 1, and peace with G.o.d renders all other enemies innocuous, and at last removes them altogether. The peace is inseparable from the subst.i.tution. If the Servant of G.o.d 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 G.o.d has been satisfied through Him; and thus an open way has been prepared for His bestowing peace and salvation. The _chastis.e.m.e.nt_ 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 G.o.d is spoken of; against the parallelism [Pg 285] with: "By His wounds we are healed;" against the ????, "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 chastis.e.m.e.nt of our peace_ is not a chastis.e.m.e.nt 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 "chastis.e.m.e.nt of our peace," in an artificial way.
According to him, there is always implied in ???? 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 ???? 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 _chastis.e.m.e.nt_ shall be to those that forsake the way, and he that hateth chastis.e.m.e.nt 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 G.o.d himself, the absolutely Righteous, the suffering here has the character of chastis.e.m.e.nt. It is not the mere suffering, but the chastis.e.m.e.nt, which is upon Him; but that necessarily requires that the punishment should proceed from the principle of _retribution_, and that the Servant of G.o.d stands forth as our Subst.i.tute.--????, Preter. Niph., hence "healing has been bestowed upon us;"--??? with ?, 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] circ.u.mstance 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 Subst.i.tute 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 ant.i.thesis; 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 G.o.d 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 dest.i.tute 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 pa.s.sage, Ezek. x.x.xiv. 4-6 may serve; [Pg 287] and according to that pa.s.sage we shall be compelled to think of their being dest.i.tute 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: ?d?? d? t??? ?????? ?sp?a????s?? pe?? a?t??, ?t? ?sa?
?s??????? ?a? ???????? ?se? p??ata ? ????ta p????a. 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: p??te? ?s?? p?? ??? ?????, ???pta? e?s? ?a? ??sta?--??? with ?
signifies "to hit;" hence _Hiphil_, "to cause to hit." The iniquities of the whole community _hit_ the Servant of G.o.d 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 subst.i.tute 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, the fountain of salvation, is now removed by His subst.i.tution, 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 G.o.d _bore_ such sufferings. It flows necessarily from the circ.u.mstance, that it was a vicarious suffering. The subst.i.tution 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 ???, "He was oppressed:" then, this condition of the Servant [Pg 288] of G.o.d is brought into connection with His _conduct_, which, only in this connection, appears in its full majesty.--??? 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. ??? and ???? "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 ???? 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 ????, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.sociated 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 circ.u.mstance that the preceding ??? is a feminine noun militates against this view), but, like the first: "He does not open His mouth," to the Servant of G.o.d. It is an expressive repet.i.tion, 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] ??
???d????e??? ??? ??te???d??e?, p?s??? ??? ?pe??e?, pa?ed?d?? d? t?
??????t? d??a???; and likewise Matt. xxvii. 12-14: ?a? ?? t?
?at????e?s?a? a?t?? ?p? t?? ????e???? ?a? p?es?t???? ???? ?pe????at?.
??te ???e? a?t? ? ????t?? ??? ????e?? p?sas?? ?ataa?t????s??; ?a? ???
?pe????? a?t? p??? ??d?? ?? ??a, ?ste ?a???e?? t?? ??e??a ??a?.
Comp. xxvi. 62; Mark xv. 5; Luke xxiii. 9; John xix. 9.
The third subdivision of the princ.i.p.al portion, vers. 8-10, describes _the reward of the Servant of G.o.d_, 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._"