Zion Awakes, the Good News Is Announced, and the Servant Is Exalted

Isa 52:3-6 The reason for the address is now given in a well-sustained promise. “For thus saith Jehovah, Ye have been sold for nothing, and ye shall not be redeemed with silver. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, My people went down to Egypt in the beginning to dwell there as guests; and Asshur has oppressed it for nothing. And now, what have I to do here? saith Jehovah: for my people are taken away for nothing; their oppressors shriek, saith Jehovah, and my name is continually blasphemed all the day.

Therefore my people shall learn my name; therefore, in that day, that I am He who saith, There am I. ” Ye have been sold (this is the meaning of Isa 52:3); but this selling is merely a giving over to a foreign power, without the slightest advantage accusing to Him who had no other object in view than to cause them to atone for their sins (Isa 50:1), and without any other people taking their place, and serving Him in their stead as an equivalent for the loss He sustained.

And there would be no need of silver to purchase the favour of Him who had given them up, since a manifestation of divine power would be all that would be required (Isa 45:13). For whether Jehovah show Himself to Israel as the Righteous One or as the Gracious One, as a Judge or as a Redeemer, He always acts as the Absolute One, exalted above all earthly affairs, having no need to receive anything, but able to give everything.

He receives no recompense, and gives none. Whether punishing or redeeming, He always guards His people’s honour, proving Himself in the one case to be all-sufficient, and in the other almighty, but acting in both cases freely from Himself. In the train of thought in Isa 52:4-6 the reason is given for the general statement in Isa 52:3. Israel went down to Egypt, the country of the Nile valley, with the innocent intention of sojourning, i.

e. , living as a guest ( gūr ) there in a foreign land; and yet (as we may supply from the next clause, according to the law of a self-completing parallelism) there it fell into the bondage of the Pharaohs, who, whilst they did not fear Jehovah, but rather despised Him, were merely the blind instruments of His will. Asshur then oppressed it bephes , i. e. , not “at last” ( ultimo tempore , as Hävernick renders it), but (as אפס is the synonym of אין in Isa 40:17; Isa 41:2) “for nothing,” i.

e. , without having acquired any right to it, but rather serving in its unrighteousness simply as the blind instrument of the righteousness of Jehovah, who through the instrumentality of Asshur put an end first of all to the kingdom of Israel, and then to the kingdom of Judah. The two references to the Egyptian and Assyrian oppressions are expressed in as brief terms as possible.

But with the words “now therefore” the prophecy passes on in a much more copious strain to the present oppression in Babylon. Jehovah inquires, Quid mihi hic (What have I to do here)? Hitzig supposes pōh (here) to refer to heaven, in the sense of, “What pressing occupation have I here, that all this can take place without my interfering? ” But such a question as this would be far more appropriate to the Zeus of the Greek comedy than to the Jehovah of prophecy.

Knobel, who takes pōh as referring to the captivity, in accordance with the context, gives a ridiculous turn to the question, viz. , “What do I get here in Babylonia, from the fact that my people are carried off for nothing? Only loss. ” He observes himself that there is a certain wit in the question. But it would be silly rather than witty, if, after Jehovah had just stated that He had given up His people for nothing, the prophet represented Him as preparing to redeem it by asking, “What have I gained by it?

” The question can have no other meaning, according to Isa 22:16, than “What have I to do here? ” Jehovah is thought of as present with His people (cf. , Gen 46:4), and means to inquire whether He shall continue this penal condition of exile any longer (Targum, Rashi, Rosenmüller, Ewald, Stier, etc.) The question implies an intention to redeem Israel, and the reason for this intention is introduced with kı̄ .

Israel is taken away ( ablatus ), viz. , from its own native home, chinnâm , i. e. , without the Chaldeans having any human claim upon them whatever. The words יהיליילוּ משׁליו (משׁלו) are not to be rendered, “its singers lament,” as Reutschi and Rosenmüller maintain, since the singers of Israel are called meshōrerı̄m ; nor “its (Israel’s) princes lament,” as Vitringa and Hitzig supposed, since the people of the captivity, although they had still their national sârı̄m , had no other mōshelı̄m than the Chaldean oppressors (Isa 49:7; Isa 14:5).

It is the intolerable tyranny of the oppressors of His people, that Jehovah assigns in this sentence as the reason for His interposition, which cannot any longer be deferred. It is true that we do meet with hēlı̄l (of which we have the future here without any syncope of the first syllable) in other passages in the sense of ululare , as a cry of pain; but just as הריע, רנן, רזח signify a yelling utterance of either joy or pain, so heeliil may also be applied to the harsh shrieking of the capricious tyrants, like Lucan’s laetis ululare triumphis , and the Syriac ailel , which is used to denote a war-cry and other noises as well.

In connection with this proud and haughty bluster, there is also the practice of making Jehovah’s name the butt of their incessant blasphemy: מנּאץ is a part. hithpoel with an assimilated ת and a pausal ā for ē , although it might also be a passive hithpoal (for the ō in the middle syllable, compare מגאל, Mal 1:7; מבהל, Est 8:14). In Isa 52:6 there follows the closing sentence of the whole train of thought: therefore His people are to get to learn His name, i.

e. , the self-manifestation of its God, who is so despised by the heathen; therefore lâkhēn repeated with emphasis, like כּעל in Isa 59:18, and possibly min in Psa 45:9) in that day, the day of redemption, (supply “it shall get to learn”) that “I am he who saith, Here am I,” i. e. , that He who has promised redemption is now present as the True and Omnipotent One to carry it into effect.

Isa 52:7 The first two turns in the prophecy (Isa 52:1-2, Isa 52:3-6) close here. The third turn (Isa 52:7-10) exults at the salvation which is being carried into effect. The prophet sees in spirit, how the tidings of the redemption, to which the fall of Babylon, which is equivalent to the dismission of the prisoners, gives the finishing stroke, are carried over the mountains of Judah to Jerusalem.

“How lovely upon the mountains are the feet of them that bring good tidings, that publish peace, that bring tidings of good, that publish salvation, that say unto Zion, Thy God reigneth royally! ” The words are addressed to Jerusalem, consequently the mountains are those of the Holy Land, and especially those to the north of Jerusalem: mebhassēr is collective (as in the primary passage, Nah 2:1; cf.

, Isa 41:27; Psa 68:12), “whoever brings the glad tidings to Jerusalem. ” The exclamation “how lovely” does not refer to the lovely sound of their footsteps, but to the lovely appearance presented by their feet, which spring over the mountains with all the swiftness of gazelles (Sol 2:17; Sol 8:14). Their feet look as if they had wings, because they are the messengers of good tidings of joy.

The joyful tidings that are left indefinite in mebhassēr , are afterwards more particularly described as a proclamation of peace , good , salvation , and also as containing the announcement “thy God reigneth,” i. e. , has risen to a right royal sway, or seized upon the government (מלך in an inchoative historical sense, as in the theocratic psalms which commence with the same watchword, or like ἐβασίλευσε in Rev 19:6, cf.

, Rev 11:17). Up to this time, when His people were in bondage, He appeared to have lost His dominion (Isa 63:19); but now He has ascended the throne as a Redeemer with greater glory than ever before (Isa 24:23). The gospel of the swift-footed messengers, therefore, is the gospel of the kingdom of God that is at hand; and the application which the apostle makes of this passage of Isaiah in Rom 10:15, is justified by the fact that the prophet saw the final and universal redemption as though in combination with the close of the captivity.

Isa 52:8 How will the prophets rejoice, when they see bodily before them what they have already seen from afar! “Hark, thy watchers! They lift up the voice together; they rejoice: for they see eye to eye, how Jehovah bringeth Zion home. ” קול followed by a genitive formed an interjectional clause, and had almost become an interjection itself (see Gen 4:10). The prophets are here called tsōphı̄m , spies, as persons who looked into the distance as if from a watch-tower ( specula , Isa 21:6; Hab 2:1) just as in Isa 56:10.

It is assumed that the people of the captivity would still have prophets among them: in fact, the very first word in these prophecies (Isa 40:1) is addressed to them. They who saw the redemption from afar, and comforted the church therewith (different from mebhassēr , the evangelist of the fulfilment), lift up their voice together with rejoicing; for they see Jehovah bringing back Zion, as closely as one man is to another when he looks directly into his eyes (Num 14:14).

בּ is the same as in the construction בּ ראה; and שׁוּב has the transitive meaning reducere , restituere (as in Psa 14:7; Psa 126:1, etc.) , which is placed beyond all doubt by שׁוּבנוּ in Psa 85:5.

Isa 52:9 Zion is restored, inasmuch as Jehovah turns away her misery, brings back her exiles, and causes the holy city to rise again from her ruins. “Break out into exultation, sing together, ye ruins of Jerusalem: for Jehovah hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed Jerusalem.” Because the word of consolation has become an act of consolation, i.e., of redemption, the ruins of Jerusalem are to break out into jubilant shouting as they rise again from the ground.

Isa 52:10 Jehovah has wrought out salvation through judgment in the sight of all the world. “Jehovah hath made bare His holy arm before the eyes of all nations, and all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God. ” As a warrior is accustomed to make bare his right arm up to the shoulder, that he may fight without encumbrance ( exsertare humeros nudamque lacessere pugnan , as Statius says in Theb .

i. 413), so has Jehovah made bare His holy arm, that arm in which holiness dwells, which shines with holiness, and which acts in holiness, that arm which has been hitherto concealed and therefore has appeared to be powerless, and that in the sight of the whole world of nations; so that all the ends of the earth come to see the reality of the work, which this arm has already accomplished by showing itself in its unveiled glory - in other words, “the salvation of our God.

”

Isa 52:11-12 This salvation in its immediate manifestation is the liberation of the exiles; and on the ground of what the prophet sees in spirit, he exclaims to them (as in Isa 48:20), in Isa 52:11, Isa 52:12 : “Go ye forth, go ye forth, go out from thence, lay hold of no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her, cleanse yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of Jehovah. For ye shall not go out in confusion, and ye shall not go forth in flight: for Jehovah goeth before you, and the God of Israel is your rear-guard.

” When they go out from thence, i. e. , from Babylon, they are not to touch anything unclean, i. e. , they are not to enrich themselves with the property of their now subjugated oppressors, as was the case at the Exodus from Egypt (Exo 12:36). It is to be a holy procession, at which they are to appear morally as well as corporeally unstained. But those who bear the vessels of Jehovah, i.

e. , the vessels of the temple, are not only not to defile themselves, but are to purify themselves ( hibbârū with the tone upon the last syllable, a regular imperative niphal of bârar ). This is an indirect prophecy, and was fulfilled in the fact that Cyrus directed the golden and silver vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought to Babylon, to be restored to the returning exiles as their rightful property (Ezr 1:7-11).

It would thus be possible for them to put themselves into the right attitude for their departure, since it would not take place in precipitous haste ( bechippâzon ), as the departure from Egypt did (Deu 16:3, cf. , Exo 12:39), nor like a flight, but they would go forth under the guidance of Jehovah. מאסּפכם (with the ē changed into the original ı̆ ) does not man, “He bringeth you, the scattered ones, together,” but according to Num 10:25; Jos 6:9, Jos 6:13, “He closes your procession,” - He not only goes before you to lead you, but also behind you, to protect you (as in Exo 14:19).

For the me'assēph , or the rear-guard of an army, is its keystone, and has to preserve the compactness of the whole. The division of the chapters generally coincides with the several prophetic addresses. But here it needs emendation. Most of the commentators are agreed that the words “Behold my servant,” etc. ( hinnēh yaskı̄l ‛abhdı̄ ) commence a new section, like hēn ‛abhdı̄ (behold my servant) in Isa 42:1.

Isa 52:11-12 This salvation in its immediate manifestation is the liberation of the exiles; and on the ground of what the prophet sees in spirit, he exclaims to them (as in Isa 48:20), in Isa 52:11, Isa 52:12 : “Go ye forth, go ye forth, go out from thence, lay hold of no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her, cleanse yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of Jehovah. For ye shall not go out in confusion, and ye shall not go forth in flight: for Jehovah goeth before you, and the God of Israel is your rear-guard.

” When they go out from thence, i. e. , from Babylon, they are not to touch anything unclean, i. e. , they are not to enrich themselves with the property of their now subjugated oppressors, as was the case at the Exodus from Egypt (Exo 12:36). It is to be a holy procession, at which they are to appear morally as well as corporeally unstained. But those who bear the vessels of Jehovah, i.

e. , the vessels of the temple, are not only not to defile themselves, but are to purify themselves ( hibbârū with the tone upon the last syllable, a regular imperative niphal of bârar ). This is an indirect prophecy, and was fulfilled in the fact that Cyrus directed the golden and silver vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought to Babylon, to be restored to the returning exiles as their rightful property (Ezr 1:7-11).

It would thus be possible for them to put themselves into the right attitude for their departure, since it would not take place in precipitous haste ( bechippâzon ), as the departure from Egypt did (Deu 16:3, cf. , Exo 12:39), nor like a flight, but they would go forth under the guidance of Jehovah. מאסּפכם (with the ē changed into the original ı̆ ) does not man, “He bringeth you, the scattered ones, together,” but according to Num 10:25; Jos 6:9, Jos 6:13, “He closes your procession,” - He not only goes before you to lead you, but also behind you, to protect you (as in Exo 14:19).

For the me'assēph , or the rear-guard of an army, is its keystone, and has to preserve the compactness of the whole. The division of the chapters generally coincides with the several prophetic addresses. But here it needs emendation. Most of the commentators are agreed that the words “Behold my servant,” etc. ( hinnēh yaskı̄l ‛abhdı̄ ) commence a new section, like hēn ‛abhdı̄ (behold my servant) in Isa 42:1.

Victor F. Oehler has recently attempted to establish an opinion, to which no one had given expression before, viz. that the transition from the collective idea of the servant of God to the “Servant of God” as an individual takes place in ver. 14, where Israel is addressed in the first clause, and the Messiah referred to in the second. But our view is a totally different one.

In every case, thus far, in which another than Jehovah has spoken, it has been the one “Servant of Jehovah” who was the centre of the circle, the heart and head of the body of Israel. And after having heard him speaking himself in Isa 1:4-9, Isa 49:1-6, Isa 48:16b, and Jehovah speaking concerning him in Isa 1. 10-11, Isa 49:7-9, Isa 42:1-7, it does not come upon us at all unexpectedly, that Jehovah begins to speak of him again here.

Nor does it surprise us, that the prophet should pass in so abrupt a manner, from the exaltation of the church to the exaltation of the servant of Jehovah. If we look back, we find that he has not omitted anything, that could preclude the possibility of our confounding this servant of Jehovah with Israel itself. For although Israel itself, in its relation to Jehovah, is spoken of frequently enough as “my servant” and “his servant ;” yet the passage before us is preceded by the same representation of Israel the community as a female, which has been sustained from Isa 51:17 onwards; and although in Isa.

51:1-16 the national idea of the "servant of Jehovah" is expressed in the most definite manner possible (more especially in Isa 51:7), the name employed is not that which the personal “Servant,” whom no one can possibly mistake in Isa 1:4-9, already bears in Isa 1:10. It is this personal Servant who is spoken of here. It is his portrait that is here filled out and completed, and that as a side-piece to the liberation and restoration of Zion-Jerusalem as depicted just before.

It is the servant of Jehovah who conducts His people through suffering to glory. It is in his heart, as we now most clearly discern, that the changing of Jehovah's wrath into love takes place. He suffers with his people, suffers for them, suffers in their stead ; because he has not brought the suffering upon himself, like the great mass of the people, through sin, but has voluntarily submitted to it as the guiltless and righteous one, in order that he might entirely remove it, even to its roots, i.

e. the guilt and the sin which occasioned it, by his own sacrifice of himself. Thus is Israel's glory concentrated in him like a sun. The glory of Israel has his glory for a focus. He is the seed-corn, which is buried in the earth, to bring forth much fruit ; and this “much fruit” is the glory of Israel and the salvation of the nations. “Christian scholars,” says Abravanel, “interpret this prophecy as referring to that man who was crucified in Jerusalem about the end of the second temple, and who, according to their view, was the Son of God, who became man in the womb of the Virgin.

, But Jonathan ben Uziel explains it as relating to the Messiah who has yet to come ; and this is the opinion of the ancients in many of their Midrashim. ” So that even the synagogue could not help acknowledging that the passage of the Messiah through death to glory is predicted here. And what interest could we have in understanding by the “servant of Jehovah,” in this section, the nation of Israel generally, as many Rabbis, both circumcised and uncircumcised, have done ; whereas he is that One Israelite in whom Jehovah has effected the redemption of both Israel and the heathen, even through the medium of Israel itself ?

Or what interest could we have in persuading ourselves that Jeremiah, or some unknown martyr-prophet, is intended, as Grotius, Bunsen, and Ewald suppose ; whereas it is rather the great unknown and misinterpreted One, whom Jewish and Judaizing exegesis still continues to misinterpret in its exposition of the figure before us, just as His contemporaries misinterpreted Him when He actually appeared among them. How many are there whose eyes have been opened when reading this “ golden passional of the Old Testament evangelist,” as Polycarp the Lysian calls it !

In how many an Israelite has it melted the crust of his heart ! It looks as if it had been written beneath the cross upon Golgotha, and was illuminated by the heavenly brightness of the full שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י. It is the unravelling of Ps. 22:1. and Ps. 110:1. It forms the outer centre of this wonderful book of consolation (Isa 40-66.) , and is the most central, the deepest, and the loftiest thing that the Old Testament prophecy, outstripping itself, has ever achieved.

And yet it does not belie its Old Testament origin. For the prophet sees the advent of “the servant of Jehovah,” and His rejection by His own people, bound up as it were with the duration of the captivity. It is at the close of the captivity that he beholds the exaltation of the Servant of Jehovah, who has died and been buried, and yet lives for ever ; and with His exaltation the inward and outward return of Israel, and the restoration of Jerusalem in its renewed and final glory ; and with this restoration of the people of God, the conversion of the nations and the salvation of mankind.

Isa 52:13 In this sense there follows here, immediately after the cry. “Go ye out from Babylon,” an index pointing from the suffering of the Servant to His reward in glory. “Behold, my servant will act wisely; he will come forth, and arise, and be very high. ” Even apart from Isa 42:1, hinnēh ( hēn ) is a favourite commencement with Isaiah; and this very first v.

contains, according to Isaiah’s custom, a brief, condensed explanation of the theme. The exaltation of the Servant of Jehovah is the theme of the prophecy which follows. In v. 13 a the way is shown, by which He reaches His greatness; in v. 13 b the increasing greatness itself. השׂכּיל by itself means simply to gain, prove, or act with intelligence (lxx συνήσει); and then, since intelligent action, as a rule, is also effective, it is used as synonymous with הצליח, הכשׁהיר, to act with result, i.

e. , so as to be successful. Hence it is only by way of sequence that the idea of “prosperously” is connected with that of “prudently” (e. g. , Jos 1:8; Jer 10:21). The word is never applied to such prosperity as a man enjoys without any effort of his own, but only to such as he attains by successful action, i. e. , by such action as is appropriate to the desired and desirable result.

In Jer 23:2, where hiskı̄l is one feature in the picture of the dominion exercised by the Messiah, the idea of intelligent action is quite sufficient, without any further subordinate meaning. But here, where the exaltation is derived from ישׂכיל as the immediate consequence, without any intervening על־כן, there is naturally associated with the idea of wise action, i.

e. , of action suited to the great object of his call, that of effective execution or abundant success, which has as its natural sequel an ever-increasing exaltation. Rosenmüller observes, in Isa 52:13 , “There is no need to discuss, or even to inquire, what precise difference there is in the meaning of the separate words;” but this is a very superficial remark.

If we consider that rūm signifies not only to be high, but to rise up (Pro 11:11) and become exalted, and also to become manifest as exalted (Ps. 21:14), and that נשּׂא, according to the immediate and original reflective meaning of the niphal , signifies to raise one’s self, whereas gâbhah expresses merely the condition, without the subordinate idea of activity, we obtain this chain of thought: he will rise up, he will raise himself still higher, he will stand on high.

The three verbs (of which the two perfects are defined by the previous future) consequently denote the commencement, the continuation, and the result or climax of the exaltation; and Stier is not wrong in recalling to mind the three principal steps of the exaltatio in the historical fulfilment, viz. , the resurrection, the ascension, and the sitting down at the right hand of God.

The addition of the word מאד shows very clearly that וגבהּ is intended to be taken as the final result: the servant of Jehovah, rising from stage to stage, reaches at last an immeasurable height, that towers above everything besides (comp. ὑπερύψωσε in Phi 2:9, with ὑψωθείς in Act 2:33, and for the nature of the ὑπερύψωσε, Eph 1:20-23).

Isa 52:14-15 The prophecy concerning him passes now into an address to him, as in Isa 49:8 (cf. , Isa 49:7), which sinks again immediately into an objective tone. “Just as many were astonished at thee: so disfigured, his appearance was not human, and his form not like that of the children of men: so will he make many nations to tremble; kings will shut their mouth at him: for they see what has not been told them, and discover what they have not heard.

” Both Oehler and Hahn suppose that the first clause is addressed to Israel, and that it is here pointed away from its own degradation, which excited such astonishment, to the depth of suffering endured by the One man. Hahn’s principal reason, which Oehler adopts, is the sudden leap that we should otherwise have to assume from the second person to the third - an example of “negligence” which we can hardly impute to the prophet.

But a single glance at Isa 42:20 and Isa 1:29 is sufficient to show how little force there is in this principal argument. We should no doubt expect עליכם or עליך after what has gone before, if the nation were addressed; but it is difficult to see what end a comparison between the sufferings of the nation and those of the One man, which merely places the sufferings of the two in an external relation to one another, could be intended to answer; whilst the second kēn (so), which evidently introduces an antithesis, is altogether unexplained.

The words are certainly addressed to the servant of Jehovah; and the meaning of the sicut (just as) in Isa 52:14, and of the sic (so) which introduces the principal sentence in Isa 52:15, is, that just as His degradation was the deepest degradation possible, so His glorification would be of the loftiest kind. The height of the exaltation is held up as presenting a perfect contrast to the depth of the degradation.

The words, “so distorted was his face, more than that of a man,” form, as has been almost unanimously admitted since the time of Vitringa, a parenthesis, containing the reason for the astonishment excited by the servant of Jehovah. Stier is wrong in supposing that this first “so” ( kēn ) refers to ka'ăsher (just as), in the sense of “If men were astonished at thee, there was ground for the astonishment.

” Isa 52:15 would not stand out as an antithesis, if we adopted this explanation; moreover, the thought that the fact corresponded to the impression which men received, is a very tame and unnecessary one; and the change of persons in sentences related to one another in this manner is intolerably harsh; whereas, with our view of the relation in which the sentences stand to one another, the parenthesis prepares the way for the sudden change from a direct address to a declaration. Hitherto many had been astonished at the servant of Jehovah: shâmēm , to be desolate or waste, to be thrown by anything into a desolate or benumbed condition, to be startled, confused, as it were petrified, by paralyzing astonishment (Lev 26:32; Eze 26:16).

To such a degree ( kēn , adeo ) was his appearance mishchath mē'ı̄sh , and his form mibbenē 'âdâm (sc. , mishchath ). We might take mishchath as the construct of mishchâth , as Hitzig does, since this connecting form is sometimes used (e. g. , Isa 33:6) even without any genitive relation; but it may also be the absolute, syncopated from משׁחתתּ = משׁחתת (Hävernick and Stier), like moshchath in Mal 1:14, or, what we prefer, after the form mirmas (Isa 10:6), with the original ă , without the usual lengthening (Ewald, §160, c, Anm.

4). His appearance and his form were altogether distortion (stronger than moshchâth , distorted), away from men, out beyond men, i. e. , a distortion that destroys all likeness to a man; 'ı̄sh does not signify man as distinguished from woman here, but a human being generally. The antithesis follows in Isa 52:15 : viz. , the state of glory in which this form of wretchedness has passed away.

As a parallel to the “many” in Isa 52:14, we have here “many nations,” indicating the excess of the glory by the greater fulness of the expression; and as a parallel to “were astonished at thee,” “he shall make to tremble” ( yazzeh ), in other words, the effect which He produces by what He does to the effect produced by what He suffers. The hiphil hizzâh generally means to spirt or sprinkle ( adspergere ), and is applied to the sprinkling of the blood with the finger, more especially upon the capporeth and altar of incense on the day of atonement (differing in this respect from zâraq , the swinging of the blood out of a bowl), also to the sprinkling of the water of purification upon a leper with the bunch of hyssop (Lev 14:7), and of the ashes of the red heifer upon those defiled through touching a corpse (Num 19:18); in fact, generally, to sprinkling for the purpose of expiation and sanctification.

And Vitringa, Hengstenberg, and others, accordingly follow the Syriac and Vulgate in adopting the rendering adsperget (he will sprinkle). They have the usage of the language in their favour; and this explanation also commends itself from a reference to נגוּע in Isa 53:4, and נגע in Isa 53:8 (words which are generally used of leprosy, and on account of which the suffering Messiah is called in b.

Sanhedrin 98 b by an emblematical name adopted from the old synagogue, “the leper of Rabbi’s school”), since it yields the significant antithesis, that he who was himself regarded as unclean, even as a second Job, would sprinkle and sanctify whole nations, and thus abolish the wall of partition between Israel and the heathen, and gather together into one holy church with Israel those who had hitherto been pronounced “unclean” (Isa 52:1). But, on the other hand, this explanation has so far the usage of the language against it, that hizzâh is never construed with the accusative of the person or thing sprinkled (like adspergere aliqua re aliquem ; since 'eth in Lev 4:6, Lev 4:17 is a preposition like ‛al , ‛el elsewhere); moreover, there would be something very abrupt in this sudden representation of the servant as a priest.

Such explanations as “he will scatter asunder” ( disperget , Targum, etc.) , or “he will spill” (sc. , their blood), are altogether out of the question; such thoughts as these would be quite out of place in a spiritual picture of salvation and glory, painted upon the dark ground we have here. The verb nâzâh signified primarily to leap or spring ; hence hizzâh , with the causative meaning to sprinkle .

The kal combines the intransitive and transitive meanings of the word “spirt,” and is used in the former sense in Isa 63:3, to signify the springing up or sprouting up of any liquid scattered about in drops. The Arabic nazâ (see Ges. Thes .) shows that this verb may also be applied to the springing or leaping of living beings, caused by excess of emotion. And accordingly we follow the majority of the commentators in adopting the rendering exsilire faciet .

The fact that whole nations are the object, and not merely individuals, proves nothing to the contrary, as Hab 3:6 clearly shows. The reference is to their leaping up in amazement (lxx θαυμάσονται); and the verb denotes less an external than an internal movement. They will tremble with astonishment within themselves (cf. , pâchădū verâgezū in Jer 33:9), being electrified, as it were, by the surprising change that has taken place in the servant of Jehovah.

The reason why kings “shut their mouths at him” is expressly stated, viz. , what was never related they see, and what was never heard of they perceive; i. e. , it was something going far beyond all that had ever been reported to them outside the world of nations, or come to their knowledge within it. Hitzig’s explanation, that they do not trust themselves to begin to speak before him or along with him, gives too feeble a sense, and would lead us rather to expect לפניו than עליו.

The shutting of the mouth is the involuntary effect of the overpowering impression, or the manifestation of their extreme amazement at one so suddenly brought out of the depths, and lifted up to so great a height. The strongest emotion is that which remains shut up within ourselves, because, from its very intensity, it throws the whole nature into a suffering state, and drowns all reflection in emotion (cf.

, yachărı̄sh in Zep 3:17). The parallel in Isa 49:7 is not opposed to this; the speechless astonishment, at what is unheard and inconceivable, changes into adoring homage, as soon as they have become to some extent familiar with it. The first turn in the prophecy closes here: The servant of Jehovah, whose inhuman sufferings excite such astonishment, is exalted on high; so that from utter amazement the nations tremble, and their kings are struck dumb.

Isa 52:14-15 The prophecy concerning him passes now into an address to him, as in Isa 49:8 (cf. , Isa 49:7), which sinks again immediately into an objective tone. “Just as many were astonished at thee: so disfigured, his appearance was not human, and his form not like that of the children of men: so will he make many nations to tremble; kings will shut their mouth at him: for they see what has not been told them, and discover what they have not heard.

” Both Oehler and Hahn suppose that the first clause is addressed to Israel, and that it is here pointed away from its own degradation, which excited such astonishment, to the depth of suffering endured by the One man. Hahn’s principal reason, which Oehler adopts, is the sudden leap that we should otherwise have to assume from the second person to the third - an example of “negligence” which we can hardly impute to the prophet.

But a single glance at Isa 42:20 and Isa 1:29 is sufficient to show how little force there is in this principal argument. We should no doubt expect עליכם or עליך after what has gone before, if the nation were addressed; but it is difficult to see what end a comparison between the sufferings of the nation and those of the One man, which merely places the sufferings of the two in an external relation to one another, could be intended to answer; whilst the second kēn (so), which evidently introduces an antithesis, is altogether unexplained.

The words are certainly addressed to the servant of Jehovah; and the meaning of the sicut (just as) in Isa 52:14, and of the sic (so) which introduces the principal sentence in Isa 52:15, is, that just as His degradation was the deepest degradation possible, so His glorification would be of the loftiest kind. The height of the exaltation is held up as presenting a perfect contrast to the depth of the degradation.

The words, “so distorted was his face, more than that of a man,” form, as has been almost unanimously admitted since the time of Vitringa, a parenthesis, containing the reason for the astonishment excited by the servant of Jehovah. Stier is wrong in supposing that this first “so” ( kēn ) refers to ka'ăsher (just as), in the sense of “If men were astonished at thee, there was ground for the astonishment.

” Isa 52:15 would not stand out as an antithesis, if we adopted this explanation; moreover, the thought that the fact corresponded to the impression which men received, is a very tame and unnecessary one; and the change of persons in sentences related to one another in this manner is intolerably harsh; whereas, with our view of the relation in which the sentences stand to one another, the parenthesis prepares the way for the sudden change from a direct address to a declaration. Hitherto many had been astonished at the servant of Jehovah: shâmēm , to be desolate or waste, to be thrown by anything into a desolate or benumbed condition, to be startled, confused, as it were petrified, by paralyzing astonishment (Lev 26:32; Eze 26:16).

To such a degree ( kēn , adeo ) was his appearance mishchath mē'ı̄sh , and his form mibbenē 'âdâm (sc. , mishchath ). We might take mishchath as the construct of mishchâth , as Hitzig does, since this connecting form is sometimes used (e. g. , Isa 33:6) even without any genitive relation; but it may also be the absolute, syncopated from משׁחתתּ = משׁחתת (Hävernick and Stier), like moshchath in Mal 1:14, or, what we prefer, after the form mirmas (Isa 10:6), with the original ă , without the usual lengthening (Ewald, §160, c, Anm.

4). His appearance and his form were altogether distortion (stronger than moshchâth , distorted), away from men, out beyond men, i. e. , a distortion that destroys all likeness to a man; 'ı̄sh does not signify man as distinguished from woman here, but a human being generally. The antithesis follows in Isa 52:15 : viz. , the state of glory in which this form of wretchedness has passed away.

As a parallel to the “many” in Isa 52:14, we have here “many nations,” indicating the excess of the glory by the greater fulness of the expression; and as a parallel to “were astonished at thee,” “he shall make to tremble” ( yazzeh ), in other words, the effect which He produces by what He does to the effect produced by what He suffers. The hiphil hizzâh generally means to spirt or sprinkle ( adspergere ), and is applied to the sprinkling of the blood with the finger, more especially upon the capporeth and altar of incense on the day of atonement (differing in this respect from zâraq , the swinging of the blood out of a bowl), also to the sprinkling of the water of purification upon a leper with the bunch of hyssop (Lev 14:7), and of the ashes of the red heifer upon those defiled through touching a corpse (Num 19:18); in fact, generally, to sprinkling for the purpose of expiation and sanctification.

And Vitringa, Hengstenberg, and others, accordingly follow the Syriac and Vulgate in adopting the rendering adsperget (he will sprinkle). They have the usage of the language in their favour; and this explanation also commends itself from a reference to נגוּע in Isa 53:4, and נגע in Isa 53:8 (words which are generally used of leprosy, and on account of which the suffering Messiah is called in b.

Sanhedrin 98 b by an emblematical name adopted from the old synagogue, “the leper of Rabbi’s school”), since it yields the significant antithesis, that he who was himself regarded as unclean, even as a second Job, would sprinkle and sanctify whole nations, and thus abolish the wall of partition between Israel and the heathen, and gather together into one holy church with Israel those who had hitherto been pronounced “unclean” (Isa 52:1). But, on the other hand, this explanation has so far the usage of the language against it, that hizzâh is never construed with the accusative of the person or thing sprinkled (like adspergere aliqua re aliquem ; since 'eth in Lev 4:6, Lev 4:17 is a preposition like ‛al , ‛el elsewhere); moreover, there would be something very abrupt in this sudden representation of the servant as a priest.

Such explanations as “he will scatter asunder” ( disperget , Targum, etc.) , or “he will spill” (sc. , their blood), are altogether out of the question; such thoughts as these would be quite out of place in a spiritual picture of salvation and glory, painted upon the dark ground we have here. The verb nâzâh signified primarily to leap or spring ; hence hizzâh , with the causative meaning to sprinkle .

The kal combines the intransitive and transitive meanings of the word “spirt,” and is used in the former sense in Isa 63:3, to signify the springing up or sprouting up of any liquid scattered about in drops. The Arabic nazâ (see Ges. Thes .) shows that this verb may also be applied to the springing or leaping of living beings, caused by excess of emotion. And accordingly we follow the majority of the commentators in adopting the rendering exsilire faciet .

The fact that whole nations are the object, and not merely individuals, proves nothing to the contrary, as Hab 3:6 clearly shows. The reference is to their leaping up in amazement (lxx θαυμάσονται); and the verb denotes less an external than an internal movement. They will tremble with astonishment within themselves (cf. , pâchădū verâgezū in Jer 33:9), being electrified, as it were, by the surprising change that has taken place in the servant of Jehovah.

The reason why kings “shut their mouths at him” is expressly stated, viz. , what was never related they see, and what was never heard of they perceive; i. e. , it was something going far beyond all that had ever been reported to them outside the world of nations, or come to their knowledge within it. Hitzig’s explanation, that they do not trust themselves to begin to speak before him or along with him, gives too feeble a sense, and would lead us rather to expect לפניו than עליו.

The shutting of the mouth is the involuntary effect of the overpowering impression, or the manifestation of their extreme amazement at one so suddenly brought out of the depths, and lifted up to so great a height. The strongest emotion is that which remains shut up within ourselves, because, from its very intensity, it throws the whole nature into a suffering state, and drowns all reflection in emotion (cf.

, yachărı̄sh in Zep 3:17). The parallel in Isa 49:7 is not opposed to this; the speechless astonishment, at what is unheard and inconceivable, changes into adoring homage, as soon as they have become to some extent familiar with it. The first turn in the prophecy closes here: The servant of Jehovah, whose inhuman sufferings excite such astonishment, is exalted on high; so that from utter amazement the nations tremble, and their kings are struck dumb.

Isa 53:1 But, says the second turn in Isa 53:1-3, the man of sorrows was despised among us, and the prophecy as to his future was not believed. We hear the first lamentation (the question is, From whose mouth does it come?) in Isa 53:1 : “Who hath believed our preaching; and the arm of Jehovah, over whom has it been revealed? ” “I was formerly mistaken,” says Hofmann ( Schriftbeweis , ii.

1, 159, 160), “as to the connection between Isa 53:1 and Isa 52:13-15, and thought that the Gentiles were the speakers in the former, simply because it was to them that the latter referred. But I see now that I was in error. It is affirmed of the heathen, that they have never heard before the things which they now see with their eyes. Consequently it cannot be they who exclaim, or in whose name the inquiry is made, Who hath believed our preaching?

” Moreover, it cannot be they, both because the redemption itself and the exaltation of the Mediator of the redemption are made known to them from the midst of Israel as already accomplished facts, and also because according to Isa 52:15 (cf. , Isa 49:7; Isa 42:4; Isa 51:5) they hear the things unheard of before, with amazement which passes into reverent awe, as the satisfaction of their own desires, in other words, with the glad obedience of faith.

And we may also add, that the expression in Isa 53:8, “for the transgression of my people,” would be quite out of place in the mouths of Gentiles, and that, as a general rule, words attributed to Gentiles ought to be expressly introduced as theirs. Whenever we find a “we” introduced abruptly in the midst of a prophecy, it is always Israel that speaks, including the prophet himself (Isa 42:24; Isa 64:5; Isa 16:6; Isa 24:16, etc.)

Hofmann therefore very properly rejects the view advocated by many, from Calvin down to Stier and Oehler, who suppose that it is the prophet himself who is speaking here in connection with the other heralds of salvation; “for,” as he says, “how does all the rest which is expressed in the 1st pers. plural tally with such a supposition? ” If it is really Israel, which confesses in Isa 53:2.

how blind it has been to the calling of the servant of Jehovah, which was formerly hidden in humiliation but is now manifested in glory; the mournful inquiry in Isa 53:1 must also proceed from the mouth of Israel. The references to this passage in Joh 12:37-38, and Rom 10:16, do not compel us to assign Isa 53:1 to the prophet and his comrades in office. It is Israel that speaks even in Isa 53:1.

The nation, which acknowledges with penitence how shamefully it has mistaken its own Saviour, laments that it has put no faith in the tidings of the lofty and glorious calling of the servant of God. We need not assume, therefore, that there is any change of subject in Isa 53:2; and (what is still more decisive) it is necessary that we should not, if we would keep up any close connection between Isa 53:1 and Isa 52:15.

The heathen receive with faith tidings of things which had never been heard of before; whereas Israel has to lament that it put no faith in the tidings which it had heard long, long before, not only with reference to the person and work of the servant of God, but with regard to his lowly origin and glorious end. שמוּעה (a noun after the form ישׁוּעה, שׁבוּעה, a different form from that of גּדלּה, which is derived from the adjective גדל) signifies the hearsay (ἀκοή), i.

e. , the tidings, more especially the prophetic announcement in Isa 28:9; and שׁמעתנוּ, according to the primary subjective force of the suffix, is equivalent to שמענוּ אשר שמוּעה (cf. , Jer 49:14), i. e. , the hearsay which we have heard. There were some, indeed, who did not refuse to believe the tidings which Israel heard: ἀλλ ̓ οὖ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (Rom 10:16); the number of the believers was vanishingly small, when compared with the unbelieving mass of the nation.

And it is the latter, or rather its remnant which had eventually come to its senses, that here inquires, Who hath believed our preaching, i. e. , the preaching that was common among us? The substance of the preaching, which had not been believed, was the exaltation of the servant of God from a state of deep degradation. This is a work performed by the “arm of Jehovah,” namely, His holy arm that has been made bare, and that now effects the salvation of His people, and of the nations generally, according to His own counsel (Isa 52:10; Isa 51:5).

This arm works down from on high, exalted far above all created things; men have it above them, and it is made manifest to those who recognise it in what is passing around them. Who, asks Israel, has had any faith in the coming exaltation of the servant of God? who has recognised the omnipotence of Jehovah, which has set itself to effect his exaltation? All that follows is the confession of the Israel of the last times, to which this question is the introduction.

We must not overlook the fact that this golden “passional” is also one of the greatest prophecies of the future conversion of the nation, which has rejected the servant of God, and allowed the Gentiles to be the first to recognise him. At last, though very late, it will feel remorse. And when this shall once take place, then and not till then will this chapter - which, to use an old epithet, will ever be carnificina Rabbinorum - receive its complete historical fulfilment.

Isa 53:2 The confession, which follows, grows out of the great lamentation depicted by Zechariah in Zec 12:11. “And he sprang up like a layer-shoot before Him, and like a root-sprout out of dry ground: he had no form, and no beauty; and we looked, and there was no look, such that we could have found pleasure in him. ” Isa 53:2, as a sequel to Isa 53:1 , looks back to the past, and describes how the arm of Jehovah manifested itself in the servant’s course of life from the very beginning, though imperceptibly at first, and unobserved by those who merely noticed the outside.

The suffix of לפניו cannot refer to the subject of the interrogative sentence, as Hahn and Hofmann suppose, for the answer to the quis there is nemo ; it relates to Jehovah, by which it is immediately preceded. Before Jehovah, namely, so that He, whose counsel thus began to be fulfilled, fixed His eye upon him with watchfulness and protecting care, he grew up כּיּונק, like the suckling, i.

e. , (in a horticultural sense) the tender twig which sucks up its nourishment from the root and stem (not as Hitzig supposes, according to Eze 31:16, from the moisture in the soil); for the tender twig upon a tree, or trunk, or stalk, is called ינקת (for which we have יונק here): vid. , Eze 17:22, the twig of a cedar; Psa 80:12 (11), of a vine; Job 8:16, of a liana.

It is thought of here as a layer, as in Eze 17:22; and, indeed, as the second figure shows when taken in connection with Isa 11:1, as having been laid down after the proud cedar of the Davidic monarchy from which it sprang had been felled; for elsewhere it is compared to a shoot which springs from the root left in the ground after the tree has been felled. Both figures depict the lowly and unattractive character of the small though vigorous beginning.

The expression “out of dry ground,” which belongs to both figures, brings out, in addition, the miserable character of the external circumstances in the midst of which the birth and growth of the servant had taken place. The “dry ground” is the existing state of the enslaved and degraded nation; i. e. , he was subject to all the conditions inseparable from a nation that had been given up to the power of the world, and was not only enduring all the consequent misery, but was in utter ignorance as to its cause; in a word, the dry ground is the corrupt character of the age.

In what follows, the majority of the commentators have departed from the accents, and adopted the rendering, “he had no form and no beauty, that we should look at Him” (should have looked at Him), viz. , with fixed looks that loved to dwell upon Him. This rendering was adopted by Symmachus and Vitringa (ἳνα εἴδωμεν αὐτόν; ut ipsum respiceremus ). But Luther, Stier, and others, very properly adhere to the existing punctuation; since the other would lead us to expect בּו ונראה instead of ונראהוּ, and the close reciprocal relation of ולא־מראה ונראהוּ, which resembles a play upon the words, is entirely expunged.

The meaning therefore is, “We saw Him, and there was nothing in His appearance to make us desire Him, or feel attracted by Him. ” The literal rendering of the Hebrew, with its lively method of transferring you into the precise situation, is ut concupisceremus eum ( delectaremur eo ); whereas, in our oriental style, we should rather have written ut concupivissemus , using the pluperfect instead of the imperfect, or the tense of the associated past.

Even in this sense ונראהוּ is very far from being unmeaning: He dwelt in Israel, so that they had Him bodily before their eyes, but in His outward appearance there was nothing to attract or delight the senses.

Isa 53:3 On the contrary, the impression produced by His appearance was rather repulsive, and, to those who measured the great and noble by a merely worldly standard, contemptible. “He was despised and forsaken by men; a man of griefs, and well acquainted with disease; and like one from whom men hide their face: despised, and we esteemed Him not. ” All these different features are predicates of the erat that is latent in non species ei neque decor and non adspectus .

Nibhzeh is introduced again palindromically at the close in Isaiah’s peculiar style; consequently Martini’s conjecture לא וגו נבזהוּ is to be rejected. This nibhzeh (cf. , bâzōh , Isa 49:7) is the keynote of the description which looks back in this plaintive tone. The predicate chădal 'ı̄shı̄m is misunderstood by nearly all the commentators, inasmuch as they take אישׁים as synonymous with בני־אדם, whereas it is rather used in the sense of בני־אישׁ (lords), as distinguished from benē 'âdâm , or people generally (see Isa 2:9, Isa 2:11, Isa 2:17).

The only other passages in which it occurs are Pro 8:4 and Psa 141:4; and in both instances it signifies persons of rank. Hence Cocceius explains it thus: “wanting in men, i. e. , having no respectable men with Him, to support Him with their authority. ” It might also be understood as meaning the ending one among men, i. e. , the one who takes the last place (S.

ἐλάχιστος, Jer. novissimus ); but in this case He Himself would be described as אישׁ, whereas it is absolutely affirmed that He had not the appearance or distinction of such an one. But the rendering deficiens (wanting) is quite correct; compare Job 19:14, “my kinsfolk have failed” ( defecerunt , châdelū , cognati mei ). The Arabic chadhalahu or chadhala ‛anhu (also points to the true meaning; and from this we have the derivatives châdhil , refusing assistance, leaving without help; and machdhûl , helpless, forsaken (see Lane’s Arabic Lexicon ).

In Hebrew, châdal has not only the transitive meaning to discontinue or leave off a thing, but the intransitive, to case or be in want, so that chădal 'ı̄shı̄m may mean one in want of men of rank, i. e. , finding no sympathy from such men. The chief men of His nation who towered above the multitude, the great men of this world, withdrew their hands from Him, drew back from Him: He had none of the men of any distinction at His side.

Moreover, He was מכאבות אישׁ, a man of sorrow of heart in all its forms, i. e. , a man whose chief distinction was, that His life was one of constant painful endurance. And He was also חלי ידוּע, that is to say, not one known through His sickness (according to Deu 1:13, Deu 1:15), which is hardly sufficient to express the genitive construction; nor an acquaintance of disease (S.

γνωστὸς νόσῳ, familiaris morbo ), which would be expressed by מידּע or מודע; but scitus morbi , i. e. , one who was placed in a state to make the acquaintance of disease. The deponent passive ירוּע, acquainted (like bâtuăch , confisus ; zâkbūr , mindful; peritus , pervaded, experienced), is supported by מדּוּע = מה־יּרוּע; Gr. τί μαθών. The meaning is not, that He had by nature a sickly body, falling out of one disease into another; but that the wrath instigated by sin, and the zeal of self-sacrifice (Psa 69:10), burnt like the fire of a fever in His soul and body, so that even if He had not died a violent death, He would have succumbed to the force of the powers of destruction that were innate in humanity in consequence of sin, and of His own self-consuming conflict with them.

Moreover, He was kemastēr pânı̄m mimmennū . This cannot mean, “like one hiding his face from us,” as Hengstenberg supposes (with an allusion to Lev 13:45); or, what is comparatively better, “like one causing the hiding of the face from him:” for although the feminine of the participle is written מסתּרת, and in the plural מסתּרים for מסתּירים is quite possible, we never meet with mastēr for mastı̄r , like hastēr for hastı̄r in the infinitive (Isa 29:15, cf.

, Deu 26:12). Hence mastēr must be a noun (of the form marbēts , marbēq , mashchēth ); and the words mean either “like the hiding of the face on our part,” or like one who met with this from us, or (what is more natural) like the hiding of the face before his presence (according to Isa 8:17; Isa 50:6; Isa 54:8; Isa 59:2, and many other passages), i. e. , like one whose repulsive face it is impossible to endure, so that men turn away their face or cover it with their dress (compare Isa 50:6 with Job 30:10).

And lastly, all the predicates are summed up in the expressive word nibhzeh : He was despised, and we did not think Him dear and worthy, but rather “esteemed Him not,” or rather did not estimate Him at all, or as Luther expresses it, “estimated Him at nothing” ( châshabh , to reckon, value, esteem, as in Isa 13:17; Isa 33:8; Mal 3:16). The second turn closes here.

The preaching concerning His calling and His future was not believed; but the Man of sorrows was greatly despised among us.

Isa 53:4 Those who formerly mistook and despised the Servant of Jehovah on account of His miserable condition, now confess that His sufferings were altogether of a different character from what they had supposed. “Verily He hath borne our diseases and our pains: He hath laden them upon Himself; but we regarded Him as one stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

” It might appear doubtful whether אכן (the fuller form of אך) is affirmative here, as in Isa 40:7; Isa 45:15, or adversative, as in Isa 49:4. The latter meaning grows out of the former, inasmuch as it is the opposite which is strongly affirmed. We have rendered it affirmatively (Jer. vere ), not adversatively ( verum , ut vero ), because Isa 53:4 itself consists of two antithetical halves - a relation which is expressed in the independent pronouns הוּא and אנחנוּ, that answer to one another.

The penitents contrast themselves and their false notion with Him and His real achievement. In Matthew (Mat 8:17) the words are rendered freely and faithfully thus: αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν. Even the fact that the relief which Jesus afforded to all kinds of bodily diseases is regarded as a fulfilment of what is here affirmed of the Servant of Jehovah, is an exegetical index worth noticing.

In Isa 53:4 it is not really sin that is spoken of, but the evil which is consequent upon human sin, although not always the direct consequence of the sins of individuals (Joh 9:3). But in the fact that He was concerned to relieve this evil in all its forms, whenever it came in His way in the exercise of His calling, the relief implied as a consequence in Isa 53:4 was brought distinctly into view, though not the bearing and lading that are primarily noticed here.

Matthew has very aptly rendered נשׂא by ἔλαβε, and סבל by ἐβάστασε. For whilst סבל denotes the toilsome bearing of a burden that has been taken up, נשׂא combines in itself the ideas of tollere and ferre . When construed with the accusative of the sin, it signifies to take the debt of sin upon one’s self, and carry it as one’s own, i. e. , to look at it and feel it as one’s own (e.

g. , Lev 5:1, Lev 5:17), or more frequently to bear the punishment occasioned by sin, i. e. , to make expiation for it (Lev 17:16; Lev 20:19-20; Lev 24:15), and in any case in which the person bearing it is not himself the guilty person, to bear sin in a mediatorial capacity, for the purpose of making expiation for it (Lev 10:17). The lxx render this נשׂא both in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel λαβεῖν ἁμαρτίαν, once ἀναφέρειν; and it is evident that both of these are to be understood in the sense of an expiatory bearing, and not merely of taking away, as has been recently maintained in opposition to the satisfactio vicaria , as we may see clearly enough from Eze 4:4-8, where the עון שׂאת is represented by the prophet in a symbolical action.

But in the case before us, where it is not the sins, but “our diseases” (חלינוּ is a defective plural, as the singular would be written חלינוּ) and “our pains” that are the object, this mediatorial sense remains essentially the same. The meaning is not merely that the Servant of God entered into the fellowship of our sufferings, but that He took upon Himself the sufferings which we had to bear and deserved to bear, and therefore not only took them away (as Mat 8:17 might make it appear), but bore them in His own person, that He might deliver us from them.

But when one person takes upon himself suffering which another would have had to bear, and therefore not only endures it with him, but in his stead, this is called substitution or representation - an idea which, however unintelligible to the understanding, belongs to the actual substance of the common consciousness of man, and the realities of the divine government of the world as brought within the range of our experience, and one which has continued even down to the present time to have much greater vigour in the Jewish nation, where it has found it true expression in sacrifice and the kindred institutions, than in any other, at least so far as its nationality has not been entirely annulled. Here again it is Israel, which, having been at length better instructed, and now bearing witness against itself, laments its former blindness to the mediatorially vicarious character of the deep agonies, both of soul and body, that were endured by the great Sufferer.

They looked upon them as the punishment of His own sins, and indeed - inasmuch as, like the friends of Job, they measured the sin of the Sufferer by the sufferings that He endured - of peculiarly great sins. They saw in Him נגוּע, “ one stricken ,” i. e. , afflicted with a hateful, shocking disease (Gen 12:17; 1Sa 6:9) - such, for example, as leprosy, which was called נגע κατ ̓ ἐξ (2Ki 15:5, A.

ἀφήμενον, S. ἐν ἁφῆ ὄντα = leprosum , Th. μεμαστιγωμένον, cf. , μάστιγες, Mar 3:10, scourges, i. e. , bad attacks); also אלהים מכּה, “ one smitten of God ” (from nâkhâh , root נך, נג; see Comm. on Job , at Job 30:8), and מענּה bowed down (by God), i. e. , afflicted with sufferings. The name Jehovah would have been out of place here, where the evident intention is to point to the all-determining divine power generally, whose vengeance appeared to have fallen upon this particular sufferer.

The construction mukkēh 'Elōhı̄m signifies, like the Arabic muqâtal rabbuh , one who has been defeated in conflict with God his Lord (see Comm. on Job , at Job 15:28); and 'Elōhı̄m has the syntactic position between the two adjectives, which it necessarily must have in order to be logically connected with them both.