He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
8. He was taken from prison and from judgment ] Every word here is ambiguous. The principal interpretations are as follows: (1) “Without hindrance and without right he was taken away,” i.e. he was put to death without opposition from any quarter, and in defiance of justice. The only exception that can fairly be taken to this view is the translation “hindrance,” a sense of the noun for which there are no parallels. Yet the verb from which the noun is derived occurs in the sense of “detain” (1Ki 18:44, &c.), and as the noun is very uncommon, the rendering cannot be pronounced impossible. (2) “Through oppression and through judgement he was taken away” (so virtually R.V.). “Judgement” here means “judicial procedure,” and the rendering “oppression” is guaranteed by Psa 107:39. “Oppression and judgement” may mean (as explained by Cheyne) an oppressive judgement (“through distressful doom,” see his Introduction, p. 428), the idea being that the Servant’s death, like that of our Lord, was a judicial murder. For “taken away” in the sense of “put to death” see on ch. Isa 52:5, and cf. Eze 33:4 (where, however, a different part of the verb is used). (3) “From oppression and from judgement he was taken away,” i.e. released by death, or taken by God to Himself (2Ki 2:10). Here the sense of “oppression and judgement” is indeterminate; the meaning might either be simply that by death he was finally released from his troubles, or that God took him away from the malice of his persecutors. The rendering “imprisonment” instead of “oppression” could be justified from the usage of the verb (2Ki 17:4 &c.), although not of the noun itself; only in this case we must not read, “From imprisonment he was led away (to execution),” for that is an idea which could hardly have suggested itself apart from the fulfilment of the prophecy in the crucifixion of Christ. Of the three interpretations the last seems the most natural, although everything turns on the question whether the death of the Servant is conceived as caused directly by men or by God through sickness. (see below on the last clause of this verse.)
And who shall declare his generation?] A still more difficult clause. The Hebr. word for “generation” ( dr) may mean ( a) the time in which he lived, ( b) the circle of his contemporaries, ( c) those like-minded with him (Psa 12:7; Psa 14:5; Pro 30:11 ff.); but is never used with any such significance as “length of life,” or “life-history,” or “posterity.” In neither of its three senses does it supply a suitable object to the verb declare or rather consider (Psa 143:5 “meditate”). We may, however, take it in the sense ( b), and render with R.V. and as for his generation who (among them) considered &c. (On this construction see Davidson, Synt. 72, Rem. 4). Yet the construction as direct obj. of the verb is so much the more natural that any suggestion would be acceptable which might enable us to retain it. Duhm (following Knobel) takes the word in its Aramaic sense of “dwelling-place” (see on ch. Isa 38:12) and translates “who enquires after his dwelling-place” (with God)? It would be better, perhaps, to understand “dwelling-place” exactly as in Isa 38:12, of the earthly dwelling-place, the place that once knew him but knows him no more: “Who enquires after it, or thinks about it?” he has vanished from the thoughts of men.
for he was cut off (Psa 88:5; Eze 37:11) out of the land of the living ] Comp. again Jer 11:19. The R.V. makes this clause an object sentence governed by the verb “considered” (reading that instead of for). This is perhaps necessary if the R.V. rendering of the previous line be adopted.
for the rebellion of my people was he stricken (lit. “(was) a stroke upon him”)] The last word in the Hebr. ( ) would be translated most naturally “upon them” (but see Davidson, Gram. 19 R. c.); hence some render “because of the rebellion of my people, the stroke ( due) to them.” A far more satisfactory sense is obtained by the help of the LXX. Read and change the preceding noun into a passive verb ( nugga‘ for nega‘) and render was he stricken unto death. The expression “stricken” is from the same verb which in Isa 53:4 suggested leprosy as the cause of the Servant’s disfigurement; and its use here in connexion with his death is in favour of the view that he died of his sickness and not by the hands of his persecutors. If this conclusion be sound it confirms the view expressed above as to the sense of the first clause of this verse.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He was taken from prison – Margin, Away by distress and judgment. The general idea in this verse is, that the sufferings which he endured for his people were terminated by his being, after some form of trial, cut off out of the land of the living. Lowth renders this, By an oppressive judgment he was taken off. Noyes, By oppression and punishment he was taken away. The Septuagint renders it, In his humiliation ( en te tapeinosei), his judgment ( he krisis autou), (his legal trial. Thomson), was taken away; and this translation was followed by Philip when he explained the passage to the eunuch of Ethiopia Act 8:33. The eunuch, a native of Ethiopia, where the Septuagint was commonly used, was reading this portion of Isaiah in that version, and the version was sufficiently accurate to express the general sense of the passage, though it is by no means a literal translation.
The Chaldee renders this verse, From infirmities and retribution he shall collect our captivity, and the wonders which shall be done for us in his days who can declare? Because he shall remove the dominion of the people from the land of Israel; the sins which my people have sinned shall come even unto them. The Hebrew word which is here used ( otser, from atsar, to shut up, to close, means properly a shutting up, or closure; and then constraint, oppression, or vexation. In Psa 107:39, it means violent restraint, or oppression. It does not mean prison in the sense in which that word is now used. It refers rather to restraint, and detention; and would be better translated by confinement, or by violent oppressions. The Lord Jesus, moreover, was not confined in prison. He was bound, and placed under a guard, and was thus secured. But neither the word used here, nor the account in the New Testament, leads us to suppose that in fact he was incarcerated. There is a strict and entire conformity between the statement here, and the facts as they occurred on the trial of the Redeemer (see Joh 18:24; compare the notes at Act 8:33).
And from judgment – From a judicial decision; or by a judicial sentence. This statement is made in order to make the account of his sufferings more definite. He did not merely suffer affliction; he was not only a man of sorrows in general; he did not suffer in a tumult, or by the excitement of a mob: but he suffered under a form of law, and a sentence was passed in his case (compare Jer 1:16; 2Ki 25:6), and in accordance with that he was led forth to death. According to Hengstenberg, the two words here by oppression, and by judicial sentence, are to be taken together as a hendiadys, meaning an oppressive, unrighteous proceeding. So Lowth understands it. It seems to me, however, that they are rather to be taken as denoting separate things – the detention or confinement preliminary to the trial, and the sentence consequent upon the mock trial.
And who shall declare his generation? – The word rendered declare means to relate, or announce. Who can give a correct statement in regard to it – implying either that there was some want of willingness or ability to do it. This phrase has been very variously interpreted; and it is by no means easy to fix its exact meaning. Some have supposed that it refers to the fact that when a prisoner was about to be led forth to death, a crier made proclamation calling on anyone to come forward and assert his innocence, and declare his manner of life. But there is not sufficient proof that this was done among the Jews, and there is no evidence that it was done in the case of the Lord Jesus. Nor would this interpretation exactly express the sense of the Hebrew. In regard to the meaning of the passage, besides the sense referred to above, we may refer to the following opinions which have been held, and which are arranged by Hengstenberg:
1. Several, as Luther, Calvin, and Vitringa, translate it, Who will declare the length of his life? that is, who is able to determine the length of his future days – meaning that there would be no end to his existence, and implying that though he would be cut off, yet he would be raised again, and would live forever. To this, the only material objection is, that the word dor (generation), is not used elsewhere in that sense. Calvin, however, does not refer it to the personal life of the Messiah, so to speak, but to his life in the church, or to the perpetuity of his life and principles in the church which he redeemed. His words are: Yet we are to remember that the prophet does not speak only of the person of Christ, but embraces the whole body of the church, which ought never to be separated from Christ. We have, therefore, says he, a distinguished testimony respecting the perpetuity of the church. For as Christ lives for ever, so he will not suffer his kingdom to perish – (Commentary in loc.)
2. Others translate it, Who of his contemporaries will consider it, or considered it? So Storr, Doderlin, Dathe, Rosenmuller and Gesenius render it. According to Gesenius it means, Who of his contemporaries considered that he was taken out of the land of the living on account of the sin of my people?
3. Lowth and some others adopt the interpretation first suggested, and render it, His manner of life who would declare? In support of this, Lowth appeals to the passages from the Mishna and the Gemara of Babylon, where it is said that before anyone was punished for a capital crime, proclamation was made before him by a crier in these words, Whosoever knows anything about his innocence, let him come and make it known. On this passage the Gemara of Babylon adds, that before the death of Jesus, this proclamation was made forty days; but no defense could be found. This is certainly false; and there is no sufficient reason to think that the custom prevailed at all in the time of Isaiah, or in the time of the Saviour.
4. Others render it, Who can express his posterity, the number of his descendants? So Hengstenberg renders it. So also Kimchi.
5. Some of the fathers referred it to the humanity of Christ, and to his miraculous conception. This was the belief of Chrysostom. See Calvin in loc. So also Morerius and Cajetan understood it.
But the word is never used in this sense. The word dor (generation), means properly an age, a generation of human beinigs; the revolving period or circle of human life; from dur, a circle Deu 23:3-4, Deu 23:9; Ecc 1:4. It then means, also, a dwelling, a habitation Psa 49:20; Isa 38:12. It occurs often in the Old Testament, and is in all other instances translated generation, or generations. Amidst the variety of interpretations which have been proposed, it is perhaps not possible to determine with any considerable degree of certainty what is the true sense of the passage. The only light, it seems to me, which can be thrown on it, is to be derived from the 10th verse, where it is said, He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days; and this would lead us to suppose that the sense is, that he would have a posterity which no one would be able to enumerate, or declare. According to this, the sense would be, He shall be indeed cut off out of the land of the living. But his name, his race shall not be extinct. Notwithstanding this, his generation, race, posterity, shall be so numerous that no one shall be able to declare it. This interpretation is not quite satisfactory, but it has more probabilities in its favor than any other.
For – ( ky). This particle does not here denote the cause of what was just stated, but points out the connection (compare 1Sa 2:21; Ezr 10:1). In these places it denotes the same as and. This seems to be the sense here. Or, if it be here a causal particle, it refers not to what immediately goes before, but to the general strain and drift of the discourse. All this would occur to him because he was cut off on account of the transgression of his people. He was taken from confinement, and was dragged to death by a judicial sentence, and he should have a numerous spiritual posterity, because he was cut off on account of the sins of the people.
He was cut off – This evidently denotes a violent, and not a peaceful death. See Dan 9:26 : And after threescore and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. The Septuagint renders it, For his life is taken away from the earth. The word used here ( gazar), means properly to cut, to cut in two, to divide. It is applied to the act of cutting down trees with an axe (see 2Ki 6:4). Here the natural and obvious idea is, that he would be violently taken away, as if he was cut down in the midst of his days. The word is never used to denote a peaceful death, or a death in the ordinary course of events; and the idea which would be conveyed by it would be, that the person here spoken of would be cut off in a violent manner in the midst of his life.
For the transgression of my people – The meaning of this is not materially different from on account of our sins. The speaker here – Isaiah – does not place himself in opposition to the people, but includes himself among them, and speaks of them as his people, that is, those with whom he was connected – (Hengstenberg). Others, however, suppose that Yahweh is here introduced as speaking, and that he says that the Messiah was to be cut off for the sins of his people.
Was he stricken – Margin, The stroke upon him; that is, the stroke came upon him. The word rendered in the margin stroke ( nega), denotes properly a blow Deu 17:8 :Deu 21:5; then a spot, mark, or blemish in the skin, whether produced by the leprosy or any other cause. It is the same word which is used in Isa 53:4 (see the note on that verse). The Hebrew, which is rendered in the margin upon him ( lamo) has given rise to much discussion. It is properly and usually in the plural form, and it has been seized upon by those who maintain that this whole passage refers not to one individual but to some collective body, as of the people, or the prophets (see Analysis prefixed to Isa 52:13), as decisive of the controversy. To this word Rosenmuller, in his Prolegomena to the chapter, appeals for a decisive termination of the contest, and supposes the prophet to have used this plural form for the express purpose of clearing up any difficulty in regard to his meaning. Gesenius refers to it for the same purpose, to demonstrate that the prophet must have referred to some collective body – as the prophets – and not to an individual. Aben Ezra and Abarbanel also maintain the same thing, and defend the position that it can never be applied to an individual. This is not the place to go into an extended examination of this word. The difficulties which have been started in regard to it, have given rise to a thorough critical examination of the use of the particle in the Old Testament, and an inquiry whether it is ever used in the singular number. Those who are disposed to see the process and the result of the investigation, may consult Ewalds Hebrew Grammar, Leipzig, 1827, p. 365; Wisemans Lectures, pp. 331-333, Andover Edit., 1837; and Hengstenbergs Christology, p. 523. In favor of regarding it as used here in the singular number and as denoting an individual, we may just refer to the following considerations:
1. It is so rendered by Jerome, and in the Syriac version.
2. In some places the suffix mo, attached to nouns, is certainly singular. Thus in Psa 11:7, ( paneyto) His face, speaking of God; Job 27:23, Men shall clap their hands at him ( aleymo), where it is certainly singular; Isa 44:15, He maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto ( lamo).
3. In Ethiopic the suffix is certainly singular (Wiseman).
These considerations show that it is proper to render it in the singular number, and to regard it as referring to an individual. The Septuagint renders it, Eis Thanaton – Unto death, and evidently read it as if it were an abbreviation of lamuth, and they render the whole passage, For the transgressions of my people he was led unto death. This translation is adopted and defended by Lowth, and has also been defended by Dr. Kennicott. The only argument which is urged, however, is, that it was so used by Origen in his controversy with the Jews; that they made no objection to the argument that he urged; and that as Origen and the Jews were both acquainted with the Hebrew text, it is to be presumed that this was then the reading of the original. But this authority is too slight to change the Hebrew text. The single testimony of Origen is too equivocal to determine any question in regard to the reading of the Hebrew text, and too much reliance should not be reposed even on his statements in regard to a matter of fact. This is one of the many instances in which Lowth has ventured to change the Hebrew text with no sufficient authority.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 53:8-9
He was taken from prison and from judgment
He was taken from prison and from judgment:
Every word here is ambiguous.
The principal interpretations are as follows–
1. Without hindrance and without right He was taken away, i.e. He was put to death without opposition from any quarter, and in defiance of justice.
2. Through oppression and through judgment He was taken away (so virtually R.V.). Judgment here means judicial procedure, and the rendering oppression is guaranteed by Psa 107:39.
3. From oppression and from judgment He was taken away, i.e released by death, or taken by God to Himself (2Ki 2:10). Of the three interpretations, the last seems the most natural. (Prof. J. Skinner, D.D.)
Christs impisonment
(with Joh 18:12-13):–The word prison should not, perhaps, be taken to designate a particular place of incarceration; for there is no evidence to show that Christ was ever confined in any such penal cell. He was, however, a prisoner. His limbs were bound, and He was held in the custody of the iron-hearted officers of the Roman government. We shall look upon Christs imprisonment in three aspects.
I. AS THE MOST THRILLING CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.
1. He was first taken a prisoner from Gethsemane.
2. He was then taken as a prisoner from Annas to Caiaphas (Joh 18:19-24; Mat 26:59-68).
3. He was next taken a prisoner from the palace of Caiaphas to the hall of the Sanhedrim.
4. He was next taken as a prisoner from the hall of the Sanhedrim to Pilate Joh 18:28-38; Luk 23:1-7; Mar 15:1-5; Mat 27:11-14).
5. He was then taken as a prisoner from Pilate to Herod (Luk 23:8-12).
6. He was then taken as a prisoner back from Herod to Pilate (Luk 23:13-25; Mat 27:15-26; Mar 15:6-15).
7. He was finally taken as a prisoner from Pilate to Calvary (Mat 27:27-50). The cross is the culmination of the whole.
II. As THE GREATEST ENORMITY IN THE ANNALS OF CRIME.
1. His imprisonment combined all the chief elements of crime.
(1) Here was the foulest injustice. Imprisonment is for criminals; but had Christ ever been guilty of a crime?
(2) Here too is the basest ingratitude. Was there one in Judea, or Galilee, or Samaria, who could refer to one single act of unkindness which He had ever committed towards any? Not one. He went about doing good
(3) Here is astounding impiety. This Prisoner was the Son of God, the Prince of Life.
2. His Imprisonment was effected in the name of law and religion.
(1) The law they referred to (Deu 18:20) had no just application to the case of Christ, and they must have been conscious of its irrelevancy. Christ was not a prophet who had presumed to speak a word in the name of Jehovah which He had not commanded; nor had He spoken in the name of any other god; and therefore by this old law of Moses He was not guilty of death. But what if a law authorize a morally criminal act, is the act less criminal? In no measure.
(2) But it was in the name of religion as well as law. This makes the crime greater still. The men that instigated the crucifixion of the Son of God were professedly religious men; they were the religious authorities of the country. Under profession of respect for truth and God, they wrought all the enormities which blackened the page of evangelic history.
III. AS THE MOST WONDERFUL ENIGMA IN THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD. I know of nothing more wonderful in the universe than the sight of Jesus in bonds.
1. Why does Eternal Justice allow unsullied holiness thus to suffer?
2. Why does Almighty God give men the power to perpetrate such enormities?
3. Why does All-powerful Emanuel Himself submit to these enormities? Does not the vicarious principle stand out in sunny prominence? (D. Thomas, D.D.)
Christs ignominious death and glorious resurrection
I. THE SCANDAL ITSELF, laid down in the most aggravating terms–prison, judgment, cutting off from the land of the living, and a stroke upon Him for transgression as if the prophet had said, Grant all that you will charge upon Him, prison, judgment, strokes, cutting off–express it the worst way you can, all this will not impeach the glory of His excellency.
II. THE DEFENCE in other terms. He was taken from those things, and who shall declare His generation? If you think it is not enough to say that He died for others, and that He was stricken for the transgression of My people, yet He did not as every man that dieth for others; He perished not in this expression of His love, as others do: He was taken from prison, and from judgment, and now liveth gloriously. There are two things in the defence–
1. His resurrection. He was taken from prison and from judgment; He got out from under it.
2. His life and duration in that state. Who shall declare His generation? The sense is, who shall declare His age or duration? who can tell those endless ages that Christ shall live? (T. Manton, D.D.)
Who shall declare His generation?–
Who shall declare His generation?
The Hebrew word for generation is translated age in Isa 38:12, but it more properly means lifetime. The Septuagint translators have, however, hit the true idea of this passage in making the Greek word word , instead of or , for the thought regards the apparent brevity of Messiah career. He comes, and He goes, and there is an end of Him. Who will take the trouble to think about a life that is cut off so soon, and leaves, apparently, no trace? He has no successor, no family, no descendants to preserve His name. The Septuagint reading, therefore, while not a literal translation of the Hebrew, follows its thought. The Hebrew literally is, Who shall think upon His career? The Septuagint is, Who shall describe or recount His race or generation? The one refers directly to His lifetime, but indirectly to His posterity; the other confines itself to the posterity. Now, both questions are answered in Isa 38:10 He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days. The Messiah will have a spiritual seed on the earth, and in them He will continue His own earthly life. (Howard Crosby, LL.D.)
Who shall declare His generation?
Meyer, Alford, and others understand this as equivalent to, Who can describe the wickedness of the men of this time? Hengstenberg interprets it, Who shall declare His posterity? i.e. His spiritual children, born of the travail of His soul. Delitzsch translates, Of His contemporaries, who considered this: He was snatched out of the land of the living, seeing that, on account of the transgression of My people, vengeance fell on Him? Who shall declare His generation? A difficult clause. The Hebrew word for generation (dor) may mean–
(1) The time in which He lived.
(2) The circle of His contemporaries.
(3) Those like-minded with Him (Psa 41:7; Psa 14:5; Pro 30:11, etc.); but is never used with any such significance as length of life, or life-history, or posterity. We may take it in the sense (2), and render with R.V. and as for His generation who (among them) considered, etc. (Prof. J. Skinner, D.D.)
For the transgression of My people was He stricken
Christ smitten unto death:
There is reason to believe that the original text has, in this instance, undergone some alteration, and that it anciently stood thus, He was smitten unto death. It was thus written by Origen, who assures us that a certain Jew, with whom he disputed, seemed to feel himself more pressed by this expression than by any other part of the chapter. It is thus rendered by the Septuagint in our present copies; and if, in this instance, it had not concurred with the original, neither could Origen have urged it with good faith, nor the Jew have felt himself embarrassed by the argument which is suggested. (R. Hall, M.A.)
The Person stricken
The Jews pretend that no single person is designed in this portion of prophecy; but that the people of Israel collectively are denoted under the figure of one man, and that the purport of the chapter is a delineation of the calamities and sufferings which that nation should undergo, with a view to its correction and amendment. The absurdity of this evasion will be obvious to him who considers that the person who is represented as stricken is carefully distinguished by the prophet from the people for whoso benefit He suffered. For the transgression of My people was He stricken: in addition to which, He is affirmed to be stricken even to death, which, as Origen very properly urged, agrees well with the fate of an individual, but not with that of a people. (R. Hall, M. A.)
The substitution of the innocent for the guilty
Let us consider what circumstance met in this case, and must be supposed to concur on any occasion of this kind, to render fit and proper the substitution of an innocent person in the place of the guilty; and what is peculiar in the character of our Saviour, which renders it worthy of God to set Him apart as a propitiation the sins of the world, and annex the blessings of eternal life to such as believe in the doctrine of the Cross, and repent, and turn to God.
I. It is obvious that such a procedure as we are now contemplating, in order to give it validity and effect, MUST BE SANCTIONED BY THE SUPREME AUTHORITY. For a private person, whatever might be his station in society, to pretend to introduce such a commutation of punishment as is implied in such a transaction, would be a presumptuous invasion of legislative rights, which no well-regulated society would tolerate. This condition was most unequivocally satisfied in the mystery of Christs substitution.
II. Another indispensable circumstance in such a proceeding, is, that IT SHOULD BE PERFECTLY VOLUNTARY ON THE PART OF THE SUFFERER. Otherwise, it would be an act of the highest injustice; it would be the addition of one offence to another, and give a greater shock to all rightly-disposed minds than the acquittal of the guilty without any atonement. Here there appears, at first sight, an insuperable difficulty in the way of human salvation. How could that be rendered which was, at once, due to sin and mankind at large? Where could one be found that would endure the penalty freely, which was incurred by a sinful world? This our Saviour did. No sacrifice should go unwillingly to the altar. It was, indeed, reckoned a bad omen when any one did so. None ever went so willingly as He.
III. It is farther necessary that the substitute not only undertake voluntarily, but that HE BE PERFECTLY FREE FROM THE OFFENCE WHICH RENDERS PUNISHMENT NECESSARY. Accordingly, in the case of man Divine justice cannot be willing to acquiesce in a substitute who is a sharer in guilt; for the law has a previous hold upon him; there is a debt due on his own account. But Jesus Christ, though a man, was, by reason of His miraculous conception, free from the taint of original sin.
IV. There would be a great propriety in this also, that THE INNOCENT PERSON SUBSTITUTED FOR THE GUILTY, SHOULD STAND IN SOME RELATION TO HIM. Now, our Lord Jesus Christ was related to mankind; one like them whom He came to redeem. This was shadowed forth in the law of a Redeemer of a lost estate. The person who was to redeem must be related: hence a redeemer and a relation were expressed by one term, and the nearest relation was to redeem. Hence, then, the incarnation of our Lord was necessary.
V. If the substitution of the innocent in the room of the guilty is at all permitted, it seems requisite that NO ADVANTAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN OF A MOMENTARY ENTHUSIASM, a sudden impulse of heroic feeling, which might prompt a generous mind to make a sacrifice, of which, on cool deliberation, be repented. In the ease we are now contemplating, nothing could reconcile the mind to such a procedure but such a settled purpose on the part of the substitute as precludes the possibility of a vacillation or change. But this condition is found in the highest perfection on the part of the blessed Redeemer. His oblation of Himself was not the execution of a sudden purpose, the fruit of a momentary movement of pity; it was the result of deliberate counsel, the accomplishment of an ancient purpose, formed in the remotest recesses of a past eternity.
VI. In the case of the substitution of the innocent for the guilty, it seems highly requisite that HE WHO OFFERS HIMSELF AS THE SUBSTITUTE SHOULD JUSTIFY THE LAW BY WHICH HE SUFFERS. In the substitution of the Redeemer of mankind were conjoined the most prompt and voluntary endurance of the penalty, with the most avowed and cordial approbation of the justice of its sanctions. It was a great part of the business of His life to assert and vindicate by His doctrine that law which He magnified and made illustrious by His passion. Never had the law such an expounder as in the person of Him who came into the world to exhaust its penalties, and endure its curse.
VII. That the voluntary substitution of an innocent person, in the stead of the guilty, may be capable of answering the ends of justice, nothing seems more necessary than that THE SUBSTITUTE SHOULD BE OF EQUAL CONSIDERATION, AT LEAST, TO THE PARTY IN WHOSE BEHALF HE INTERPOSES. The interests sacrificed by the suffering party should not be of less cost and value than those which are secured by such a procedure. But the aggregate value of those interests must be supposed to be in some proportion to the rank and dignity of the party to which they belong. As a sacrifice to justice, the life of a peasant must, on this principle, be deemed a most inadequate substitute for that of a personage of the highest order. We should consider the requisitions of justice eluded, rather than satisfied, by such a commutation. It is on this ground that St. Paul declares it to be impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins. In this view the redemption of the human race seemed to be hopeless; for where could an adequate substitute be found? The mystery hid from ages and generations, the mystery of Christ crucified, dispels the obscurity, and presents, in the person of the Redeemer, all the qualifications which human conception can embody as contributing to the perfect character of a substitute.
VIII. However much we might be convinced of the competence of vicarious suffering to accomplish the ends of justice, and whatever the benefits we may derive from it, A BENEVOLENT MIND COULD NEVER BE RECONCILED TO THE SIGHT OF VIRTUE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER FINALLY OPPRESSED AND CONSUMED BY ITS OWN ENERGIES; and the more intense the admiration excited, the more eager would be the desire of same compensatory arrangement, some expedient by which an ample retribution might be assigned to such heroic sacrifices. If the suffering of the substitute involved his destruction, what satisfaction could a generous and feeling mind derive from impunity procured at such a cost! While we rejoice in the cross of Christ as the source of pardon, our satisfaction is heightened by beholding it succeeded by the crown.
IX. If the principle of substitution be at all admitted in the operations of criminal law, it is tog obvious to require proof that IT SHOULD BE INTRODUCED VERY SPARINGLY, only on very rare occasions, and never be allowed to subside into a settled course. It requires some great crisis to justify its introduction, some extraordinary combination of difficulties, obstructing the natural course of justice; it requires, that while the letter of the law is dispensed with, its spirit be fully adhered to; so that, instead of tending to weaken the motives to obedience, it shall present a salutary monition, a moral and edifying spectacle. The substitution of Christ in the room of a guilty race receives all the advantage as an impressive spectacle which it is possible to derive from this circumstance. It stands amidst the lapse of ages, and the waste of worlds, a single and solitary monument.
X. Whenever the expedient of vicarious suffering is adopted, A PUBLICATION OF THE DESIGN OF THAT TRANSACTION BECOMES AS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY AS OF THE TRANSACTION ITSELF; since none of the effects which it is intended to produce can be realized but in proportion as that is understood. Hence we see the infinite importance, in the doctrine of the Cross, that not merely the fact of our Lords death and sufferings should be announced, but that their object and purpose, as a great moral expedient, should be published to all nations. The doctrine of remission of sins, through the blood of that Victim which was once offered for the sins of the world, forms the grand peculiarity of the Gospel, and was the principal theme of the apostolic ministry, and is still pre-eminently the power of God to salvation. (R. Hall, M. A.)
The crucifixion
I. THE SUFFERING ITSELF. He was stricken. The greatness of this suffering will be made out to us upon these three accounts.
1. Of the latitude and extent of it.
2. Of the intenseness and sharpness of it.
3. Of the person inflicting it.
II. THE NATURE OF THE SUFFERING, which was penal, and expiatory, He was stricken for transgression.
III. THE GROUND AND CAUSE OF THIS SUFFERING, which was Gods propriety in, and relation to, the persons for whom Christ was stricken, implied in this word, My people. Conclusion: Christianity is a suffering religion, and there are two sorts of suffering to which it will certainly expose every genuine professor of it.
1. A suffering from himself; even that grand suffering of self-denial and mortification, the sharpest and most indispensable of all others, in which every Christian is not only to be the sufferer, but himself also the executioner. He who is Christs, says the apostle, has crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts.
2. From the world. (R. South, D.D.)
The stricken Christ
I. WHO WAS STRICKEN?
II. REFER TO HIS SUFFERINGS. How was He stricken?
1. With reproach. As for this fellow, we know not whence He is.
2. With ingratitude. His very disciples forsook Him, and fled.
3. With poverty.
4. Chiefly by the rod of His heavenly Father.
III. THE OBJECT OF THESE SUFFERINGS. For the transgression of My people was He stricken.
1. Justice is satisfied.
2. Conscience is at peace.
IV. THE FRUITS OF HIS SUFFERINGS, in connection with our own feelings and experience.
1. The devil is now destroyed. However formidable an enemy, the power of his arm is foiled.
2. The soul is saved.
3. All possible consolation is secured. (J. Parsons.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 8. And who shall declare his generation – “And his manner of life who would declare”] A learned friend has communicated to me the following passages from the Mishna, and the Gemara of Babylon, as leading to a satisfactory explication of this difficult place. It is said in the former, that before any one was punished for a capital crime, proclamation was made before the prisoner by the public crier, in these words: col mi shioda lo zachoth yabo vayilmad alaiv, “whosoever knows any thing of this man’s innocence, let him come and declare it.” Tract. Sandhedrim. Surenhus. Part iv. p. 233. On which passage the Gemara of Babylon adds, that “before the death of Jesus this proclamation was made for forty days; but no defense could be found.” On which words Lardner observes: “It is truly surprising to see such falsities, contrary to well-known facts.” Testimonies, Vol. I. p. 198. The report is certainly false; but this false report is founded on the supposition that there was such a custom, and so far confirms the account given from the Mishna. The Mishna was composed in the middle of the second century according to Prideaux; Lardner ascribes it to the year of Christ 180.
Casaubon has a quotation from Maimonides which farther confirms this account: – Exercitat. in Baronii Annales, Art. lxxvi. Ann. 34. Num. 119. Auctor est Maimonides in Perek xiii. ejus libri ex opere Jad, solitum fieri, ut cum reus, sententiam mortis passus, a loco judicii exibat ducendus ad supplicium, praecedoret ipsum , praeco; et haec verba diceret: Ille exit occidendus morte illa, quia transgressus est transgressione illa, in loco illo, tempore illo, et sunt ejus ret testes ille et ille. Qui noverit aliquid ad ejus innoeentiam probandam, veniat, et loquatur pro eo. “It was customary when sentence of death was passed upon a criminal, and he was led out from the seat of judgment to the place of punishment, a crier went before, and spoke as follows: – ‘This man is going out to suffer death by _____ because he has transgressed by _____ such a transgression, in such a place, in such a time; and the witnesses against him are _____. He who may know any thing relative to his innocence let him come and speak in his behalf.'”
Now it is plain from the history of the four Evangelists, that in the trial and condemnation of Jesus no such rule was observed; though, according to the account of the Mishna, it must have been in practice at that time, no proclamation was made for any person to bear witness to the innocence and character of Jesus; nor did any one voluntarily step forth to give his attestation to it. And our Saviour seems to refer to such a custom, and to claim the benefit of it, by his answer to the high priest, when he asked him of his disciples and of his doctrine: “I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them who heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said,” Joh 18:20-21. This, therefore, was one remarkable instance of hardship and injustice, among others predicted by the prophet, which our Saviour underwent in his trial and sufferings.
St. Paul likewise, in similar circumstances, standing before the judgment seat of Festus, seems to complain of the same unjust treatment; that no one was called, or would appear, to vindicate his character. “My manner of life ( , dori, ‘my generation’) from my youth, which was at the first among my own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who knew me from the beginning, if they would testify; that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee;” Ac 26:4-5.
dor signifies age, duration, the time which one man or many together pass in this world, in this place; the course, tenor, or manner of life. The verb dor signifies, according to Castell, ordinatam vitam sive aetatem egit, ordinavit, ordine constituit. “He passed a certain course of life, he ordained,” c. In Arabic, curavit, administravit, “he took care of, administered to.”
Was he stricken – “He was smitten to death”] The Septuagint read lemaveth, , “to death.” And so the Coptic and Saidic Versions, from the Septuagint MSS. St. Germain de Prez.
“Origen,” (Contra Celsum, lib. i. p. 370, edit. 1733,) after having quoted at large this prophecy concerning the Messiah, “tells us, that having once made use of this passage in a dispute against some that were accounted wise among the Jews, one of them replied, that the words did not mean one man, but one people, the Jews, who were smitten of God and dispersed among the Gentiles for their conversion; that he then urged many parts of this prophecy to show the absurdity of this interpretation, and that he seemed to press them the hardest by this sentence, , ‘for the iniquity of my people was he smitten to death.'” Now as Origen, the author of the Hexapla, must have understood Hebrew, we cannot suppose that he would have urged this last quotation as so decisive if the Greek Version had not agreed here with the Hebrew text; nor that these wise Jews would have been at all distressed by this quotation, unless their Hebrew text had read agreeably to , “to death,” on which the argument principally depended; for, by quoting it immediately, they would have triumphed over him, and reprobated his Greek version. This, whenever they could do it, was their constant practice in their disputes with the Christians. Jerome, in his Preface to the Psalms, says, Nuper cum Hebraeo disputans, quaedam pro Domino Salvatore de Psalmis testimonia protulisti: volensque ille te illudere, per sermones fere singulos asserebat, non ita haberi in Hebraeo, ut tu de LXX. opponebas. “Lately disputing with a Hebrew, – thou advancedst certain passages out of the Psalms which bear testimony to the Lord the Saviour; but he, to elude thy reasoning, asserted that almost all thy quotations have an import in the Hebrew text different from what they had in the Greek.” And Origen himself, who laboriously compared the Hebrew text with the Septuagint, has recorded the necessity of arguing with the Jews from such passages only as were in the Septuagint agreeable to the Hebrew: , ‘ . See Epist. ad African. p. 15, 17. Wherefore as Origen had carefully compared the Greek version of the Septuagint with the Hebrew text, and speaks of the contempt with which the Jews treated all appeals to the Greek version where it differed from their Hebrew text; and as he puzzled and confounded the learned Jews by urging upon them the reading , “unto death,” in this place; it seems almost impossible not to conclude, both from Origen’s argument and the silence of his Jewish adversaries, that the Hebrew text at that time actually had lemaveth, “to death,” agreeably to the version of the Septuagint. – Dr. Kennicott.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He was taken from prison and from judgment: these words are understood either,
1. Of Christs humiliation or suffering; and then the words are to be thus rendered,
He was taken away (to wit, out of this life, as this word is used, Psa 31:13; Pro 1:19, and elsewhere; he was put to death) by distress (or violence, or tyranny, as this word is used with this preposition before it, Psa 107:39) and judgment; by oppression and violence, under a form and pretence of justice. Or rather,
2. Of Christs exaltation, because of the following clause; which is not unseasonably mentioned in the midst of his sufferings, to take off the scandal which might have arisen from Christs sufferings, if there had not been a prospect and assurance of his victoriousness over them, and his glory after them; and so the words may be rendered, He was taken up (or, taken away, freed or delivered) from prison (i.e. from the grave, which being called a house, Job 30:23, and a pit, in which men are shut up Psa 69:15, may fitly be called a prison; or, from distress or affliction, or oppression, from the power and malice of his enemies, and from the torments of his own soul, arising from the sense of mens sins and Gods displeasure) and from judgment, i.e. from all the sufferings and punishments inflicted upon him, either by the unrighteous judgment of men, or by the just judgment of God, punishing him for those sins which he had voluntarily taken upon himself; or, which is the same tiling, from the sentence of condemnation, and all the effects of it; for in this sense judgment is very commonly taken both in Scripture and other authors.
Who shall declare? who can declare it? the future being taken potentially, as it is frequently; no words can sufficiently express it.
His generation; either,
1. His age, or the continuance of his life. So the sense is, that he shall not only be delivered from death, and all his punishments, but also shall be restored to an inexpressible or endless life; and to an everlasting kingdom. Thus great interpreters understand it; with whom I cannot comply, because I do not find this Hebrew word to be ever used in Scripture of the continuance of one mans life. Or rather,
2. His posterity; and so this word is unquestionably used, Gen 15:16; Exo 20:5; Deu 23:2,3,8, and in many other places. And so the sense of the place is this, that Christs death shall not be unfruitful, and that when he is raised from the dead, he shall have a spiritual seed, as is promised, Isa 53:10; a numberless multitude of those who shall believe in him, and be regenerated and adopted by him into the number of his children, and of the children of God, Joh 1:12; Heb 2:10,13,14. He was cut off, to wit, by a violent death. And this may be added as a reason, both of his exaltation, and of the blessing of a numerous posterity conferred upon him, because he was willing to be cut off for the transgression of his people; and, as it followeth, Isa 53:10, made his soul an offering for sin; Christs death being elsewhere declared to be the only way and necessary means of obtaining both these ends. Luk 24:26,46; Joh 12:24,32,33; Php 2 8,9. But these words may be rendered, although he was cut off, to signify that his death should not hinder these glorious effects.
For the transgression of my people was he stricken: this is repeated again, as it was fit it should be, to prevent mens mistakes about and stumbling at the death of Christ, and to assure them that Christ did not die for his own sins, but only for the sins and salvation of his people.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Rather, “He was takenaway (that is, cut off) by oppression and by a judicial sentence”;a hendiadys for, “by an oppressive judicial sentence”[LOWTH and HENGSTENBERG].GESENIUS not so well, “Hewas delivered from oppression and punishment” only by death.English Version also translates, “from . . . from,”not “by . . . by.” But “prison” is not true ofJesus, who was not incarcerated; restraint and bonds(Joh 18:24) more accord withthe Hebrew. Ac 8:33;translate as the Septuagint: “In His humiliation Hisjudgment (legal trial) was taken away”; the virtual sense of theHebrew as rendered by LOWTHand sanctioned by the inspired writer of Acts; He was treated as oneso mean that a fair trial was denied Him (Mat 26:59;Mar 14:55-59). HORSLEYtranslates, “After condemnation and judgment He was accepted.“
who . . . declare . . .generationwho can set forth (the wickedness of) Hisgeneration? that is, of His contemporaries [ALFORDon Ac 8:33], which suits bestthe parallelism, “the wickedness of His generation”corresponding to “oppressive judgment.” But LUTHER,”His length of life,” that is, there shall be no end ofHis future days (Isa 53:10;Rom 6:9). CALVINincludes the days of His Church, which is inseparable fromHimself. HENGSTENBERG,”His posterity.” He, indeed, shall be cut off, but His raceshall be so numerous that none can fully declare it. CHYRSOSTOM,c., “His eternal sonship and miraculous incarnation.”
cut offimplying aviolent death (Da 9:26).
my peopleIsaiah,including himself among them by the word “my”[HENGSTENBERG]. Rather,JEHOVAH speaks in theperson of His prophet, “My people,” by the electionof grace (Heb 2:13).
was he strickenHebrew,“the stroke (was laid) upon Him.” GESENIUSsays the Hebrew means “them” the collective body,whether of the prophets or people, to which the Jews refer the wholeprophecy. But JEROME, theSyriac, and Ethiopiac versions translate it “Him”;so it is singular in some passages; Ps11:7, His; Job 27:23,Him; Isa 44:15,thereto. The Septuagint, the Hebrew, lamo, “uponHim,” read the similar words, lamuth, “unto death,”which would at once set aside the Jewish interpretation, “uponthem.” ORIGEN,who laboriously compared the Hebrew with the Septuagint,so read it, and urged it against the Jews of his day, who would havedenied it to be the true reading if the word had not then really sostood in the Hebrew text [LOWTH].If his sole authority be thought insufficient, perhaps lamomay imply that Messiah was the representative of the collectivebody of all men; hence the equivocal plural-singular form.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He was taken from prison, and from judgment,…. After he had suffered and died, and made satisfaction to divine justice; or after he had been arrested by the justice of God, and was laid in prison, and under a sentence of condemnation, had judgment passed upon him, and that executed too; he was taken in a very little time from the prison of the grave where he lay, and from the state of condemnation into which he was brought, and was acquitted, justified, and declared righteous, and his people in him; a messenger was sent from heaven to roll away the stone, and set him free: though some render it,
he was taken by distress and judgment; that is, his life was taken away in a violent manner, under a pretence of justice; whereas the utmost injustice was done him; a wrong charge was brought against him, false witnesses were suborned, and his life was taken away with wicked hands; which sense seems to be favoured by the quotation in Ac 8:32 “in his humiliation his judgment was taken away”: he had not common justice done him:
and who shall declare his generation? which is not to be understood of his divine generation, as the Son of God, which is in a way ineffable and inconceivable; nor of his human generation, as the Son of Man, which is unaccountable, being born of a virgin; nor of the duration of his life after his resurrection, he dying no more, but living for ever, which is more probable; nor of the vast number of his spiritual offspring, the fruit of his sufferings, death, and resurrection; but of the age, and men of it, in which he lived, whose barbarity to him, and wickedness they were guilty of, were such as could not be declared by the mouth, or described by the pen of man. The Targum is,
“and the wonderful things which shall be done for us in his days, who can declare?”
for he was cut off out of the land of the living; was not suffered to live, was taken off by a violent death; he was cut off in a judiciary way, as if he had been a malefactor; though lest it should be thought it was for his own sins he was cut off, which is denied, Da 9:26 it is added,
for the transgression of my people was he stricken; that is, either through the malice and wickedness of the people of the Jews, whom the prophet calls his people, he was stricken, not only with the scourges of the whip, but with death itself, as the efficient cause thereof; or rather because of the transgressions of God’s elect, in order to make satisfaction for them, he was stricken by divine justice, and put to death, as the meritorious cause thereof; and so they are the words of God the Father; and this, with the preceding clause, give a reason, showing both why he was taken from the prison of the grave, acquitted, and exalted, and why the wickedness of his age could not be declared; he being stricken and cut off in such a manner, when he was an innocent person; and since it was only for the transgressions of others, even of God’s covenant people, the people he chose, and gave to Christ, Mt 1:21.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The description of the closing portion of the life of the Servant of Jehovah is continued in Isa 53:8. “He has been taken away from prison and from judgment; and of His generation who considered: ‘He was snatched away out of the land of the living; for the wickedness of my people punishment fell upon Him’?” The principal emphasis is not laid upon the fact that He was taken away from suffering, but that it was out of the midst of suffering that He was carried off. The idea that is most prominent in luqqach (with a in half pause) is not that of being translated (as in the accounts of Enoch and Elijah), but of being snatched or hurried away ( abreptus est , Isa 52:5; Eze 33:4, etc.). The parallel is abscissus (cf., nikhrath , Jer 11:19) a terra viventium , for which by itself is supposed to be used in the sense of carried away (i.e., out of the sphere of the living into that of the dead, Lam 3:54; cf., Eze 37:11, “It is all over with us”). (from , compescere ) is a violent constraint; here, as in Psa 107:39, it signifies a persecuting treatment which restrains by outward force, such as that of prison or bonds; and m ishpat refers to the judicial proceedings, in which He was put upon His trial, accused and convicted as worthy of death – in other words, to His unjust judgment. The min might indeed be understood, as in Isa 53:5, not as referring to the persons who swept Him away (= ), but, as in Psa 107:39, as relating to the ground and cause of the sweeping away. But the local sense, which is the one most naturally suggested by luqqach (e.g., Isa 49:24), is to be preferred: hostile oppression and judicial persecution were the circumstances out of which He was carried away by death. With regard to what follows, we must in any case adhere to the ordinary usage, according to which dor (= Arab. daur , dahr , a revolution or period of time) signifies an age, or the men living in a particular age; also, in an ethical sense, the entire body of those who are connected together by similarity of disposition (see, for example, Psa 14:5); or again (= Arab. dar ) a dwelling, as in Isa 38:12, and possibly also (of the grave) in Psa 49:20. Such meanings as length of life (Luther and Grotius), course of life (Vitringa), or fate (Hitzig), it is impossible to sustain. Hence the Sept. rendering, , which Jerome also adopts, can only mean, so far as the usage of the language is concerned, “who can declare the number of His generation” (i.e., of those inspire by His spirit,or filled with His life); but in this connection such a thought would be premature. Moreover, the generation intended would be called rather than , as springing from Him.
Still less can we adopt the meaning “dwelling,” as Knobel does, who explains the passage thus: “who considers how little the grave becomes Him, which He has received as His dwelling-place.” The words do not admit of this explanation. Hofmann formerly explained the passage as meaning, “No one takes His dwelling-place into his mind or mouth, so as even to think of it, or inquire what had become of Him;” but in His Schriftbeweis he has decided in favour of the meaning, His contemporaries, or the men of His generation. It is only with this rendering that we obtain a thought at all suitable to the picture of suffering given here, or to the words which follow (compare Jer 2:31, O ye men of this generation). in that case is not the object to , the real object to which is rather the clause introduced by , but an adverbial accusative, which may serve to give emphatic prominence to the subject, as we may see from Isa 57:12; Eze 17:21; Neh 9:34 (Ges 117, Anm.); for cannot be a preposition, since inter aequales ejus would not be expressed in Hebrew by , but by . The pilel socheach with b e signifies in Psa 143:5 a thoughtful consideration or deliberation, in a word, meditationem alicujus rei (compare the kal with the accusative, Psa 145:5). The following k is an explanatory quod : with regard to His contemporaries, who considered that, etc. The words introduced with k are spoken, as it were, out of the heart of His contemporaries, who ought to have considered, but did not. We may see from that it is intended to introduce a direct address; and again, if we leave k untranslated, like recitativum (see, for example, Jos 2:24; compare di , Dan 2:25), we can understand why the address, which has been carried on thus far in such general terms, assumes all at once an individual form. It cannot be denied, indeed, that we obtain a suitable object for the missing consideration, if we adopt this rendering: “He was torn away ( 3rd praet.) out of the land of the living, through ( min denoting the mediating cause) the wicked conduct of my people (in bringing Him to death), to their own punishment; i.e., none of the men of His age (like m in Isa 53:1, no one = only a very few) discerned what had befallen them on account of their sin, in ridding themselves of Him by a violent death.” Hofmann and V. F. Oehler both adopt this explanation, saying, “Can the prophet have had the person of the Ecce Homo before his eye, without intimating that his people called down judgment upon themselves, by laying violent hands upon the Servant of God?” We cannot, however, decide in favour of this explanation; since the impression produced by this is, that it is intended to be taken as a rectification of in Isa 53:4, to which it stands in a reciprocal relation. This reciprocal relation is brought out more fully, if we regard the force of the min as still continued ( ob plagam quae illis debebatur , Seb. Schmid, Kleinert, etc.); though not in the sense of “through the stroke proceeding from them, my people” (Hahn), which would be opposed to the general usage of ; or taking as a relative clause, populi mei quibus plaga debebatur (Hengstenberg, Hvernick). But the most natural course is to take lamo as referring to the Servant of God, more especially as our prophet uses lamo pathetically for lo , as Isa 54:15 unquestionably shows (notwithstanding the remonstrance of Stier, who renders the passage, “He was all plague, or smiting, for them”). always signifies suffering as a calamity proceeding from Go (e.g., Exo 11:1; Psa 39:11, and in every other passage in which it does not occur in the special sense of leprosy, which also points back, however, to the generic idea of a plague divinely sent); hence Jerome renders it, “for the sin of my people have I smitten Him.” The text does not read so; but the smiter is really Jehovah. Men looked upon His Servant as a ; and so He really was, but not in the sense of which men regarded Him as such. Yet, even if they had been mistaken concerning His during His lifetime; now that He no longer dwelt among the living, they ought to see, as they looked back upon His actions and His sufferings, that it was not for His own wickedness, but for that of Israel, viz., to make atonement for it, that such a visitation from God had fallen upon Him ( as in Isa 24:16 and Isa 26:16, where the sentence is in the same logical subordination to the previous one as it is here, where Dachselt gives this interpretation, which is logically quite correct: propter praevaricationem populi mei plaga ei contingente ).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
8. From prison and judgment. There are various ways in which this passage is expounded. Some think that the Prophet continues the argument which he had already begun to treat, namely, that Christ was smitten by the hand of God, and afflicted, on account of our sins. The Greek translators render it, ἐν τὣ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ᾔρθη. “In his humiliation his judgment was taken away.” Others, “He was taken away without delay.” Others explain it, “He was taken away to the cross;“ that is, as soon as Christ was seized, he was dragged to “judgment.” I rather agree with those who think that the Prophet, after having spoken of death, passes to the glory of the resurrection. He intended to meet the thoughts by which the minds of many persons might have been troubled and distressed; for when we see nothing but wounds and shame, we are struck with amazement, because human nature shrinks from such a spectacle.
The Prophet therefore declares that he was taken away; that is, that he was rescued “from prison and judgment” or condemnation, and afterwards was exalted to the highest rank of honor; that no one might think that he was overwhelmed or swallowed up by that terrible and shameful kind of death. For, undoubtedly, he was victorious even in the midst of death, and triumphed over his enemies; and he was so judged that now he has been appointed to be judge of all, as was publicly manifested by his resurrection. (Act 10:42) The same order is followed by the Prophet as by Paul, who, after having declared that Christ was abased even to the cross, adds that, on this account, he was exalted to the very highest honor, and that there was given him a: name to which all things both in heaven and in earth must render obedience and bend the knee. (Phi 2:9)
Who shall relate his generation? This exclamation has been stretched and (I may say) tortured into various meanings. The ancients abused this passage in reasoning against the Arians, when they wished to prove by it Christ’s eternal generation. But they ought to have been satisfied with clearer testimonies of Scripture, that they might not expose themselves to the mockery of heretics, who sometimes take occasion from this to become more obstinate; for it might easily have been objected that the Prophet was not thinking about that subject. Chrysostom views it as relating to the human nature of Christ, that he was miraculously, and not by ordinary generation, conceived in the womb of the virgin; but that is a wide departure from the Prophet’s meaning. Others think that Isaiah kindles into rage against the men of that age who crucified Christ. Others refer it to the posterity which should be born; namely, that Christ’s posterity will be numerous though he die.
But, as דור (dor) signifies “age” or “duration,” I have no doubt that he speaks of the “age” of Christ, and that his meaning is, that Christ, though almost overwhelmed by sicknesses, shall not only be taken from them, but that even his age shall be permanent and eternal; or, in other words, that he shall be unlike those who are indeed rescued from death, but shall afterwards die; for Christ rose from the dead, to live for ever, and, as Paul says, “cannot now die; death shall no longer have dominion over him.” (Rom 6:9) Yet let us remember that the Prophet does not speak of Christ’s person alone, but includes the whole body of the Church, which ought never to be separated from him. We have therefore a striking proof of the perpetuity of the Church. As Christ liveth for ever, so he will not permit his kingdom to perish. The same immortality shall at length be bestowed on each of the members.
For he was cut off. This might indeed, at first sight, appear to be absurd, that the death of Christ is the cause and source of our life; but, because he bore the punishment of our sins, we ought therefore to apply to ourselves all the shame that appears in the cross. Yet in Christ the wonderful love of God shines forth, which renders his glory visible to us; so that we ought to be excited to rapturous admiration.
For the transgression of my people. He again repeats that the wound was inflicted on him “for the sins of the people;“ and the object is, that we may diligently consider that it was for our sake, and not for his own, that he suffered; for he bore the punishment which we must have endured, if he had not offered this atonement. We ought to perceive in ourselves that guilt of which he bore the accusation and punishment, having offered himself in our name to the Father, (51) that by his condemnation we may be set free.
(51) “ Au pere celeste.” “To the heavenly Father.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CHRIST STRICKEN
(Sacramental Service.)
Isa. 53:8. For the transgression of my people was He stricken.
The general doctrine of the text is that of an expiation for sinners, made by an innocent victim substituted in their place. In the substitution of an innocent being to suffer in the room of the guilty (and especially such a being as Jesus Christ), and in pardoning and accepting the guilty into favour on that account, there appears a departure from all our common ideas of justice and propriety, &c. We have no disposition to diminish this singularity. It stands alone. But we certainly shall fail of the just and real essence of the Christian religion in our hearts, if we do not have faith in this expiation; and if our minds cannot compass the whole amazing matter, we may hope at least to have some gleams of illumination, like the lightnings flash on the dark bosom of the storm. Let us see:
I. The wonder of this punishment for sin laid upon an innocent and Divine Being accords with our best conceptions of God. The most just conception of God that we have ever had is that of an incomprehensible Being. The high wonder of this expiation agrees with the infinitude of God. A suffering Christ is an infinite wonder; and, therefore, the wonder of the doctrine of an expiation for sinners by the sufferings of the innocent, instead of being a reason for our incredulity, is really a reason for our faith. The innocence, the person, and the expiation of the Victim, all accord with the incomprehensible God, &c. Be yond us, and peculiar in everything else, He is beyond us and peculiar in the great atonement.
II. Our God has different modes of giving intimations of Himself. We cannot learn all that we are able to know of Him in any one spot, or by any one transaction. To lead us on He has employed grades, and built one scaffolding above another. There is matter which came from nothing at His bidding; and in this world we may learn something of His control over matter. We may lift our eyes beyond this world, and as we look out upon the stars, we may add to our knowledge of Gods government over material things. Beyond matter is mind. Beyond mere intelligence there is a kingdom of sensibilities. Still beyond there is a moral kingdom. The world of grace is still higher. Redemptionthe salvation of sinnersis not a matter of mere creation, or mere government or recovery from ruin merely; it is a matter of mercy to the sinning and the punishment of sin. This matter evidently lies beyond all others. Stricken for my people is just the amazing thing which the rising gradations of the revelations of God demand.
III. The mystery, the wonder of this redemption of sinners, by stripes laid on Christ, accords with us, as well as it accords with God. We are sinners. See what sin hath done. Some symbols of its mischief are visible. It blasted paradise, &c.! Sin has broken up our relations with God. Our Creator, our final Judge, is against us! The law which sin has broken is Gods lawthe law for the immortal spiritthe law for eternity to come! Eternity! The mind staggers under the weight of that idea. To last on for ever, a sinner cut off from God, and no more at peace with myself than with Him; to feel eternally the gnawings of the worm that dieth not and the wrath of God! Sooner come annihilation! Now, in the presence of these wants, this sin which has no analogy, which has broken up our peace relations with God, this conscience, these agonies of a fearing spirit, and this dreadful eternitywhat shall God do for us? What do we want Him to do? Just what He has done. We want Him to meet our infinite fears with His infinite offers, our worst foes with His ineffable grace; to show us while we stand trembling before His justice, that something has been done which that justice cannot find fault withsomething which shall wave the peace-branch over the door into eternity! He has done it. It is His own work, on His own authority, like Him, and just because it has such wonders about it as the innocence and mysterious person of a suffering Christ, our faith can trust it. Where we most fear, God is most wonderful. The excellence and the innocence of the sacrifice as the ground of our peace, shows us that the august redemption perfectly assorts with the ineffable woes and wants of our sinful condition.
4. The uses we ought to make of this subject are not trivial. There are those who have no living faith in this atonement, and who will not come to the memorial of it. Why? Simply because of two things.
(1.) They have low and grovelling ideas of Godideas very much confined to His earthly things and His natural attributes.
(2.) They do not justly realise their condition and necessities as sinners. If men have inadequate notions of God, they will have inadequate notions of sin. If they have inadequate notions of sin, they will have inadequate notions of Christ; and then there will be nothing seen in their condition to drive them, and nothing in His character to draw them, to His infinite sacrifice. If they had anything like a just idea of what it is to be a sinner, they would look to the sacrifice of Christ with amazing gladness and gratitude.Ichabod S. Spencer, D.D.: Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 412431.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(8) He was taken from prison . . .The Hebrew preposition admits of this rendering, which is adopted by many commentators, as describing the oppression and iniquitous trial which had preceded the death of the servant. It admits equally of the sense, through oppression and through judgment; and, on the whole, this gives a preferable sense. The whole procedure was tainted with iniquity.
Who shall declare his generation?The words are, perhaps, the most difficult of the whole section, and have been very differently explained: (1) Who shall declare his life, the mystery of his birth, his eternal being? (2) Who shall count his spiritual offspring? as in Psa. 22:30. (3) As to his generation (i.e., his contemporaries, as in Jer. 2:31), who will consider rightly? (4) Who shall set forth his generation in all the intensity of their guilt?to say nothing of other renderings, which render the noun as his dwelling, i.e., the grave, or his course of life, or his fate. Of these (3) seems most in harmony with the context, the words that follow pointing to the fact which ought to have been considered, and was not, that though the Servant of Jehovah was smitten, it was not for his own sins, but theirs.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. From prison and from judgment who shall declare, etc. Among multifarious interpretations here, that which is least often adopted seems the best, ( Lowth,) namely, Deprived of proper legal detainment and trial the usual prior summoning of witnesses, according to Jewish law who can have the requisite knowledge of his teaching and way of life in such a precipitate condemnation? The Hebrew preposition mem, (English, from,) before the words rendered “prison,” and “judgment,” denotes the unjust privative fact, or legal right denied to him; and Christ’s own reference when before Pilate (Joh 18:20-21) to the Jewish law of trial, adds force to this interpretation, which is further sustained by the following clause.
For he was cut off out of the land of the living And this with indecent haste; with no chance for a proper trial: all this, too, because he was willing to suffer for the sins of the people of Israel and of the world.
Was he stricken Hebrew, The stroke was upon him.
Isa 53:8. He was taken from prison, &c. “And yet the indignities of his sufferings were enough to shock his patience, especially their taking away his life, under colour of law and justice, and a fair trial. Who that saw him in these sad circumstances, so evil treated by them, would have supposed him to be the promised Messiah, whom the Jews had so impatiently expected, of David’s line, when they saw him cut off out of the land of the living, by those whom he came to save? For I cannot too often repeat it, it was for the sins of my people, not his own, that he was stricken.” The former clause may be rendered, He was taken up from distress, or taken off by authority and judgment; and who shall declare his duration? &c. Instead of duration, Bishop Chandler reads lineage; and he observes, that otzer, here translated prison, signifies any convention, or assembly of men, Jer 9:2 and thence is applied to any legal session of magistrates or single authority, as Jdg 18:7. 1Sa 9:17.
DISCOURSE: 971 Isa 53:8. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
IT has been generally thought, especially among heathen writers, that if virtue could be set before the eyes of men, and exhibited by some pattern of perfect excellence, it would conciliate the esteem of all, and be held in universal admiration. But Socrates entertained a very different opinion: he thought that if any person possessed of perfect virtue were to appear in the world, his conduct would form so striking a contrast to that of all around him, that he would be hated, despised, and persecuted, and at last be put to death; because the world could not endure the tacit, but keen reproofs, which such an example must continually administer. Experience proves that the opinion of this great philosopher was founded in a just estimate of human nature. Such a light did come into the world: it shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not: the workers of iniquity hated the light, and endeavoured to extinguish it, though their malicious attempts served but to make it burn with brighter lustre. The Lord Jesus was none other than virtue itself incarnate; and his enemies abundantly justified the opinion of Socrates; for they combined against him, and treated him with unexampled cruelty, and slew him. The extreme injustice of their conduct towards him is strongly marked in the words before us; which, on account of their intricacy, we shall explain, and, as replete with useful instruction, we shall improve.
I.
To explain them
Commentators have differed much in their interpretation of the former clauses of the text; some referring them to the exaltation of Christ, and others to his humiliation. According to the former, they import that God would raise him from the dead, and give him an inexpressible weight of glory, together with an innumerable seed, who should, as it were, be born to him. But we very much prefer the interpretation that refers them to the trial and execution of our Lord: for, in this view, they form an evident connexion between his behaviour under the indignities offered him [Note: ver. 7.], and his burial in the grave of a rich man [Note: ver. 9.]. A learned prelate [Note: Bishop Lowth.] translates them thus; He was taken off by an oppressive judgment; and his manner of life who would declare? According to this view of the words, they particularly specify the injustice, which, under a legal form, should be exercised towards him, and the want of that, which was, in every court of justice, the privilege of prisoners, the liberty of calling witnesses to testify on his behalf. Our Lord himself refers to that custom in his answer to the high-priest [Note: Joh 18:20-21.]; I spake openly to the world: and in secret have I said nothing: why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said to them: behold, they know what I said. St. Paul also, when before Festus and Agrippa, complained that his adversaries withheld from him the testimony, which their knowledge of him qualified them to give: My manner of life from my youth know all the Jews, who knew me from the beginning (if they would testify) that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee [Note: Act 26:4-5.]. A further confirmation of this sense of the words arises from the manner in which they are cited by an inspired writer: St. Luke, quoting the very passage before us, says, In his humiliation his judgment was taken away; and, who shall declare his generation [Note: Act 8:33.]? Now though the latter words are the same as in the text, yet the former vary considerably from it; and seem to determine this to be the true scope of the whole; namely, that the most common rights of justice should be denied to our Lord at the time of his trial.
The history of our Lord is but too just a comment on this prophecy: for surely there never was a person treated with such flagrant injustice as he. His enemies, unable to lay any thing to his charge, suborned false witnesses, that they might take away his life by perjury: and when these agreed not in their testimony, they laid hold of an expression used by him some years before, and put a different construction upon it from what he ever intended, in order to found on that a ground of accusation against him. They dragged him from one tribunal to another in hopes of obtaining sentence against him: and when the governor, after repeated examinations, declared that he could find no fault in him, they would not suffer him to pass such a sentence as law and equity demanded, but in a tumultuous and threatening manner, compelled him to deliver him up into their hands, and to sanction their cruelties by his official mandate. The particular injustice, which we are more immediately called to notice, was, that they never once summoned any witnesses to speak on his behalf. If they had permitted the herald, as on other occasions, to invite all who knew the prisoner to give testimony to his character, how many thousands could have disproved the accusations of his enemies, and established his reputation on the firmest basis! What multitudes could have affirmed, that, instead of usurping the prerogatives of Csar, he had miraculously withdrawn himself from the people, when they sought to invest him with royal authority: and had charged them to be as conscientious in giving to Csar the things that were Csars, as unto God the things that were Gods! And while these invalidated the charges of treason and sedition, how many myriads could have borne witness to his transcendent goodness! How might they have said, I was blind, and he gave me sight; I was deaf, and he unstopped my ears; I was dumb, and he loosed my tongue; I was lame, and he invigorated my limbs; I was sick, and he restored me to health; I was possessed with devils, and he delivered me from their power; I was dead, and he raised me to life again. Possibly some might have been found, who had not lost all remembrance of his kindness, provided they had been suffered to speak on his behalf: but, as on a former occasion, the chief priests had excommunicated the blind man for arguing in his defence [Note: Joh 9:22; Joh 9:34.], so now did they intimidate all, insomuch that none dared to open their lips in his favour. Even his own disciple, who had promised the most faithful adherence to his cause, forsook him in this extremity, and, through fear of their threatened vengeance, denied, with oaths and curses, that he even knew the man.
Having prevailed by dint of clamour, the Jews led him forth to execution, that he might be cut off out of the land of the living. But no Jewish punishment was sufficiently cruel to satiate their malice: they therefore, notwithstanding their rooted hatred of a foreign yoke, voluntarily acknowledged their subjection to the Romans, that they might be gratified with seeing him die by the most lingering, painful, and ignominious of all deaths, a death which none but slaves were ever suffered to endure. Our iniquities were the true occasion of all the calamities that he endured. How far, and to what extent, he may be said to have suffered for the transgressions of those who shall never be numbered amongst Gods people, is a point not easy to determine, nor at all necessary to inquire into. In some sense it is undeniable, he died for all, and was a propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world: and if it be asked, who brought him from heaven? who betrayed, condemned and crucified him? we answer, We: the Jews and Romans were the instruments, but our transgressions were the true and only cause, of all his sufferings. Nor can the importance of this truth be more strongly marked than by the frequent repetition of it in this short chapter. Indeed, if this be not borne in mind, we may be affected with the recital of his history, as we should be with the history of Joseph, or any other pathetic story; but we shall be for ever destitute of those benefits, which his vicarious sufferings were intended to impart.
Having explained the words before us, we shall endeavour,
II.
To improve them
We may well learn from them, in the first place, to guard against the effects of popular prejudice and clamour
Never was the power of prejudice so awfully manifest as on this occasion. The chief priests and rulers had only to raise an outcry against Jesus, and the unthinking populace adopted their views, and carried into effect their most inhuman purposes. It was quite sufficient to stigmatize Jesus with some opprobrious name, and all his virtues were obscured, all his benevolent actions were forgotten; and the common forms of justice were superseded for his readier condemnation. Thus it is also at this day with respect to his Gospel. We profess indeed, as Christians, to reverence the name of Christ; but there is precisely the same hatred to his Gospel in the hearts of carnal men, as there was to his person in the hearts of those who nailed him to the cross. His followers are now, no less than in former ages, a sect every where spoken against. Some name of reproach is given them; and that is sufficient to put every one on his guard against them, and to render them objects of general scorn and contempt. Their sentiments are misrepresented; opinions and practices are imputed to them without any just foundation; nor can any innocence of conduct, any excellence of character, any exertions of benevolence secure them a candid and impartial judgment. We easily see what ought to have been the conduct of the Jews, before they proceeded to inflict such miseries on our adorable Saviour: they should have compared his character with the prophetic writings; and examined the evidences he adduced in support of his pretensions. Had they done this, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. Thus should we also do with respect to his Gospel. Instead of condemning it unheard, we should give it an attentive and patient hearing. We should then bring what we hear to the touchstone of divine truth, and, by comparing it with the sacred oracles, endeavour to ascertain how far it is worthy of our belief. Such conduct would be reasonable, even if the Gospel affected our happiness only in this present life: but when we consider that our everlasting salvation also depends on our acceptance of it, surely we must be inexcusable indeed if we will not bestow this attention on a concern of such infinite importance. On the other hand, if, like the Bereans, we search the Scriptures daily, to see whether things be as they are represented to us, we doubt not respecting the issue of such an inquiry; we shall soon believe the Gospel, and enjoy its richest blessings. Let us not then suffer our judgment to be warped by prejudice, or our inquiries to be stopped by popular clamour. If any people be objects of general odium on account of their religious sentiments and conduct, let us not hastily conclude that they are wrong; lest peradventure we be found fighting against God, and reject the counsel of God against ourselves. The opposition made to them may perhaps be rather considered as a presumption in their favour; because the true religion, and its most strenuous advocates, have in every age been maligned and opposed. The just medium is, neither to reject nor receive any thing without a diligent and impartial examination; but to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good [Note: 1Th 5:21.].
This subject may further teach us,
2.
To expect injuries from the hands of an ungodly world.
The Scripture has plainly told us that we must suffer with Christ in order that we may reign with him. Nor did our Lord conceal this truth from his followers: on the contrary, he was peculiarly solicitous that they should bear it in mind; Remember, says he, the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord: if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you [Note: Joh 15:20.]. It is certain, therefore, that we must be conformed to our Saviours image, and, like him, be made perfect through sufferings. If we think to resemble him in holiness, and yet to escape the cross, we shall find ourselves disappointed in the issue. We must either violate our conscience by sinful compliances, or bear reproach on account of our singularity. We may indeed, by a long course of exemplary conduct, put to silence the ignorance of foolish men [Note: 1Pe 2:15]: but our fortitude will be tried; nor can we hope that God will make our enemies to be at peace with us, till our ways have long been pleasing in his sight, and our fidelity have been proved by many painful and victorious conflicts. It is worthy of observation, that St. Peter makes this very improvement of our Lords sufferings: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind [Note: 1Pe 4:1; 1Pe 4:12-13.]. He goes further still; and bids us not think it strange if we should be tried with fiery trials, as though some strange thing happened unto us; but rather to rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of Christs sufferings, that, when his glory shall be revealed, we may be glad also with exceeding joy. Let us then take up our cross daily, and follow Christ. Let no fear of man deter us from a conscientious discharge of our duty. Let us remember him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest we be weary and faint in our minds. And if we have reason to expect, that, like him, we shall even be cut off out of the land of the living for our adherence to the truth, let us cheerfully suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together.
There is yet one more improvement which, above all, it behoves us to make of this subject It powerfully speaks to all of us this salutary admonition.
3.
Let that be a source of grief to you, which was an occasion of such misery to Christ
Can we recollect that every transgression of ours inflicted a wound on the sacred body of our Lord, yea and caused the deepest agony in his soul, and yet review our past lives with indifference? Shall not rather the experience of every day fill us with shame and contrition? And shall not sin appear so hateful in our eyes, that we shall henceforth turn away from it with indignation and abhorrence? We are informed that David, when three of his worthies had cut their way through the Philistine hosts, and, at the most imminent peril of their lives, had brought him water from the well of Bethlehem, forbore to drink of it, and poured it out before the Lord with this reflection; Is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives [Note: 2Sa 23:15-17.]? However much he had thirsted for it, he was deterred by this consideration from even tasting it. And shall not we, when tempted to gratify any unhallowed appetite, call to mind what it cost our Lord to redeem us from it? However strong may be our thirst for sin, shall not the remembrance of our having so often drank it with greediness abase us in the dust? And shall we not in future put away the cup from our lips, saying, This is the blood, not of a mere man who jeoparded his life, but of Gods only Son, who actually died for me? Was he crucified for me once, and shall I now crucify him afresh? Did he shed his precious blood for me, and shall I tread him under foot, and count his blood an unholy thing? How shall I do such wickedness, and sin thus against my God and Saviour? This were indeed a good improvement of the subject before us: this were to answer the great end of all Christs sufferings; since he gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify us unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. This too beyond all things would evince us to be the very people of God, for whose transgressions he was stricken. Let this effect then be visible amongst us. So, when we ourselves shall stand at the tribunal of our Lord, our lives shall testify on our behalf; and the judge of quick and dead shall say, I know that ye feared me, seeing that ye put away from you the accursed thing, which my soul hated.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Ver. 8. He was taken from prison and from judgment. ] Absque dilatione et citra iudicium raptus est, sc., ad crucem, so Vatablus rendereth it. He was hurried away to the cross without delay, and against right or reason, a Or, as others, he was taken from distress and torment into glory when he had cried, Consummatum est, It is finished; and, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. The Seventy render it somewhat otherwise, as may be seen, Act 8:33 . The apostle Peter explaineth it, Act 2:24 .
And who shall declare his generation?
For he was cut off out of the land of the living.
For the transgression of my people. a Inaudita causa for an unheard reason.
b Augustine.
from prison and from judgment, &c. = by constraint and by sentence He was taken away.
who shall declare His generation? = as to the men of His age [i.e. His contemporaries!, who ponders, or considers as to this seed, seeing He is to be “cut off”? Compare Isa 53:10.
cutoff. Compare Dan 9:26. Thus the climax of this prophecy is reached: (1) a hint (Isa 42:4); (2) open lament (Isa 49:4); (3) personal suffering (Isa 50:6); now (4) a violent death (Isa 53:8).
from prison and from judgment; and, or, by distress and judgment; but, etc. Psa 22:12-21, Psa 69:12, Mat 26:65, Mat 26:66, Joh 19:7
who: Mat 1:1, Act 8:33, Rom 1:4
cut off: Dan 9:26, Joh 11:49-52
was he stricken: Heb. was the stroke upon him, 1Pe 3:18
Reciprocal: Gen 39:20 – into the prison Job 28:13 – in the land Psa 88:5 – cut Psa 88:16 – cut me Psa 116:9 – in the land Pro 30:4 – who hath gathered Isa 53:11 – bear Jer 11:19 – destroy Mat 20:28 – and to Mar 12:7 – This Joh 7:27 – no man Joh 10:15 – and I Joh 10:20 – why Joh 12:34 – Christ Act 8:32 – He was Act 26:18 – and from 1Jo 3:4 – transgresseth Rev 5:6 – a Lamb
Isa 53:8. He was taken from prison and from judgment As we do not find that imprisonment was any part of Christs sufferings, the marginal reading seems to be preferable here. He was taken away by distress and judgment; that is, he was taken out of this life by oppression, violence, and a pretence of justice: or, as Bishop Lowth has it, By an oppressive judgment he was taken off. In Act 8:33, where we find this passage quoted, the reading of the LXX. is followed exactly, , In his humiliation his judgment was taken away; that is, in his state of humiliation he had no justice shown him; to take away a persons judgment, being a proverbial phrase for oppressing him. Or, as Dr. Doddridge explains it, Jesus appeared in so humble a form, that, though Pilate was convinced of his innocence, he seemed a person of so little importance that it would not be worth while to hazard any thing to preserve him. They who prefer the translation given in our text, as Beza and many other commentators do, think the words refer to Christs being taken, by his resurrection, from his confinement in the grave, (which they suppose to be here called a prison, as it is termed a house, Job 30:23, and a pit, Psa 69:15,) and from the judgment, or sentence, which had been executed upon him: agreeable to which Mr. LEnfant renders it, His condemnation was taken away by his very abasement; that is, his stooping to death gave occasion to his triumph. And who shall declare his generation This is one of the many passages of the Old Testament prophecies, says Dr. Doddridge, in which it is not so difficult to find a sense fairly applicable to Christ, as to know which to prefer of several that are so. Many ancient, as well as modern writers, have referred it to the mystery of his Deity, his eternal generation, or his incarnation, his miraculous conception. But Calvin and Beza say, this was owing to their ignorance of the Hebrew, the word not admitting such a sense; and it is certain it very ill suits the connection with the following clause. Some understand it as referring to his not having any witnesses to appear for him and give an account of his life and character. This interpretation is preferred by Bishop Lowth, who therefore renders the clause, And his manner of life who would declare? Others again, among whom are Calvin and Beza, think it is as if the prophet had said, Who can declare how long he shall live and reign, or count the numerous offspring that shall descend from him? But, not to say that this idea is much more clearly expressed by the prophet, Isa 53:10, which, on this interpretation, is a tautology, it does not appear that , generation, and , seed, are ever used as synonymous terms. The former of these words, in the Hebrew, signifies the same with a generation of men, in English, who are contemporaries; (see Gen 7:1; Jdg 2:10; Psa 95:10; Psa 109:13;) and , in the LXX., by which it is here rendered, has most frequently this sense. Therefore, I suppose, says Dr. Doddridge, with Dr. Hammond, the sense to be, Who can describe the obstinate infidelity and barbarous injustice of that generation of men, among whom he appeared, and from whom he suffered such things? For he was cut off Namely, by a violent death; out of the land of the living By the wicked hands of those whom he came to save: see Act 2:23. For the transgression Or, as some render, , By the transgression of my people was he stricken Hebrew, , the stroke was on him; that is, he was stricken, was crucified and slain, by or through the wickedness of the Jews. The former, however, is doubtless the sense intended, for, as the angel testified to Daniel, (Dan 9:24; Dan 9:26,) the Messiah was to be cut off, not for himself, but for the sins and salvation of mankind. And this, though asserted Isa 53:4-6, is here repeated as a doctrine that cannot be too frequently inculcated, or too much regarded; and to prevent mens mistakes about, or stumbling at, the humiliation of Christ, as though he had suffered and died for his own sins.
53:8 He was taken from {l} prison and from judgment: {m} and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off from the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
(l) From the cross and grave, after that he was condemned.
(m) Though he died for sin, yet after his resurrection he will live forever and this his death is to restore life to his members, Rom 6:9 .
The Servant’s treatment at the hands of others would be unjust from start to finish. Oppressive legal treatment and twisted justice would result in His being taken away to suffer and die (cf. Mat 26:59-61; Luk 23:2-4; Luk 23:13-16). This was not the case in Israel’s suffering in captivity. That suffering was in harmony with what justice prescribed. However, it was for the transgressions of the prophet’s people that the Servant would suffer a fatal blow (cf. Gen 9:11; Exo 12:15; Dan 9:26; Php 2:5-8; Col 1:13-14; Col 1:19-20). This does not rule out His dying for Gentiles as well. Perhaps Isaiah identified Israel as the beneficiary of the Servant’s death here because Israel’s sins had been so great and Isaiah’s ministry was to Israel. Miscarried justice would be only the means to that end.
It is quite clear that the Servant did not just die for the Israelites. Some of what Isaiah wrote about "my people" might lead the reader to this conclusion. However, the testimony of Scripture, which statements in Isaiah support, is that the Servant paid for the sins of all humanity (e.g., 1Jn 2:2). Note that the Servant referred to here cannot be the Israelites since He would die for the transgression of "my people," namely, the Israelites.
Those of the Servant’s generation who observed Him dying would not appreciate that He was dying as a substitute (cf. Isa 53:1-3). The Hebrew of this verse may point to a meaning beyond this. The Hebrew word dor, translated "generation," also means "line." If that is the meaning (or one of the meanings) of this word here, Isaiah may also have meant that no one would consider that the Servant died childless. Childlessness in His culture suggested a futile existence and a curse from God. People would conclude that He died cursed by God rather than as a substitute sacrifice.
". . . the language of the fourth song certainly allows for the servant’s suffering to be vicarious (note esp. ’he will justify many’), but it does not demand such an interpretation in and of itself. The full import of the language awaits clarification by subsequent revelation . . ." [Note: Chisholm, A Theology . . ., p. 331.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
OUR LORDS TRIAL AND EXECUTION
Who that had seen the universal and invincible determination of the Jewish people to destroy him, must not have concluded, that he was one whose unparalleled iniquities had excited their just abhorrence? Who, on being told that there was not one found upon the face of the whole earth to speak a word on his behalf, must not have been persuaded that he suffered for his own transgressions? But though the testimony of man was not formally and audibly given at the bar of judgment, there was abundant proof, that he suffered, not for his own sins, but for ours. There was a remarkable concurrence of circumstances to establish his innocence, not only in spite of their efforts to prove him guilty, but, in a great measure, arising from them. The endeavours of the chief priests to bring false witnesses, clearly shewed that they had no just ground of accusation against him. Had any person been able to impute evil to him, it is most probable that Judas would have done it, and would have brought it forth in vindication of his own conduct: but he, so far from justifying his own treachery, restored to the chief priests the wages of iniquity, affirming that he had betrayed innocent blood: and they, unable to contradict him, tacitly acknowledged the truth of his assertion, bidding him look to that as his concern. Pilate not only declared repeatedly that he could find no fault in him, but that neither was Herod able to lay any thing to his charge. He even came forth before them all, and washed his hands, in token that the guilt of condemning that just person should lie on those who had demanded his execution, and not on him who had reluctantly consented to it. The thief upon the cross, reproving his contemptuous companion, attested the innocence of Jesus, saying, We indeed suffer justly; but this man hath done nothing amiss. If he be thought an incompetent witness, because he spake not from his own knowledge; we affirm that his testimony was so much the stronger, because it was founded on common report, and therefore was not the testimony of a mere individual, but of the Jews in general. To these we may add the testimony of the Centurion, who had been stationed to superintend the execution. He had seen the dying behaviour of this persecuted man; he had seen that, immediately before his death, he had cried with a loud voice, manifesting thereby that he willingly surrendered up his soul, while his body was yet strong and vigorous: he had been witness to that supernatural darkness during the three last hours of our Saviours life; he had felt the earthquake at the moment of his departure from the body; and by these, as well as other circumstances, he was convinced of Jesus innocence, and exclaimed in the hearing of the people, Truly this was a just man, this was the Son of God. Thus evident was it in the midst of all the obloquy that was cast on Jesus, that he was not stricken for any transgressions of his own.
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)