And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
9. The unrelenting antipathy which the Servant experienced through life is continued even after his death, and expresses itself in the manner of his burial.
And they (R.V.) made his grave with the wicked ] The subject is indefinite, the construction being equivalent to a passive: “And his grave was made” &c. “With the wicked” need not imply that a special burial-ground was set apart for them as a class, but only that such persons were buried ignominiously and away from the family sepulchre, like Absalom (2Sa 18:17). From Jer 26:23 (cf. 2Ki 23:6) it appears that it was a disgrace to be buried among the “common people.” In this case the “wicked” probably means the notoriously wicked, criminals, apostates, and such like. With these the Servant was numbered because his calamities had seemed to mark him out as a heinous sinner in the sight of God.
and with the rich in his death ] This clause must express the same idea as the preceding. To take the two antithetically: “they meant his grave to be with the wicked, but he was with the rich in his death” (Delitzsch) is utterly unwarrantable. It is, no doubt, somewhat difficult to justify this sense of “rich” as synonymous with “wicked” from O.T. usage, although it might perhaps be suggested by the common identification of poverty with piety. This explanation, however, is not quite satisfactory, and several emendations have been proposed, such as “the oppressor” ( for ), “the defrauder” ( , Aramaic), “evil-doers” ( ).
in his death ] lit. “in his deaths.” The use of the plural is variously explained. Some find in it an intimation of the collective character of the subject spoken of under the name of the Servant; but even if the Servant be a collective idea, it is inconceivable that the writer should have here abandoned the personification which he has so strictly maintained throughout. Nor is it any relief to say that it means “in his state of death.” It is better to read the singular with the LXX. There is, however, another reading found in a few MSS. and adopted by many commentators, according to which the clause would form a perfect parallelism with the first line:
“And with the rich (or oppressor, &c.) his sepulchral mound.” But the word bmh (= high-place) is not elsewhere used in this sense.
because he had done no violence &c.] Render with R.V. although (“in spite of the fact that”) &c. as in Job 16:17. With this assertion of his innocence the narrative of the Servant’s career reaches its conclusion. While absolute sinlessness is not explicitly predicated of him, but only freedom from “violence” and “deceit,” yet the image of the lamb led to the slaughter, and his patient resignation to the will of God, strongly suggest that the prophet had in his mind the conception of a perfectly sinless character.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And he made his grave with the wicked – Jerome renders this, Et dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte sua. The Septuagint renders it, I will give the wicked instead of his burial ( anti tes taphes), and the rich in the place, or instead of his death ( anti tou thanatou). The Chaldee renders it, He will deliver the wicked into Gehenna, and the rich in substance who oppress, by a death that is destructive, that the workers of iniquity may no more be established, and that they may no more speak deceit in their mouth. The Syriac renders it beautifully, the wicked gave a grave. Hengstenberg renders it, They appointed him his grave with the wicked (but he was with a rich man after his death); although he had done nothing unrighteous, and there was no guile in his mouth. The sense, according to him, is, that not satisfied with his sufferings and death, they sought to insult him even in death, since they wished to bury his corpse among criminals. It is then incidentally remarked, that this object was not accomplished. This whole verse is exceedingly important; and every word in it deserves a serious examination, and attentive consideration. It has been subjected to the closest investigation by critics, and different interpretations have been given to it. They may be seen at length in Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Hengstenberg. The word rendered he made ( vayiten, from nathan) is a word of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. According to Gesenius, it means:
1. To give, as:
(a) to give the hand to a victor;
(b) to give into the hand of anyone, that is, the power;
(c) to give, that is, to turn the back;
(d) to give, that is, to yield fruit as a tree;
(e) to give, that is, to show compassion:
(f) to give honor, praise, etc.:
(g) to give into prison, or into custody.
2. To sit, place, put, lay;
(a) to set before anyone;
(b) to set one over any person or thing;
(c) to give ones heart to anything; that is, to apply the mind, etc.
3. To make;
(a) to make or constitute one as anything;
(b) to make a thing as something else.
The notion of giving, or giving over, is the essential idea of the word, and not that of making, as our translation would seem to imply; and the sense is, that he was given by design to the grave of the wicked, or it was intended that he should occupy such a grave. The meaning then would be:
And his grave was appointed with the wicked;
But he was with a rich man in his death –
Although he had done no wrong,
Neither was there any guile in his mouth.
But who gave, or appointed him? I answer:
1. The word may either here be used impersonally, as in Psa 72:15. to him shall be given, margin, one shall give, Ecc 2:21, meaning, that someone gave, or appointed his grave with the wicked; that is, his grave was appointed with the wicked; or,
2. The phrase my people ( ammy) must be supplied; my people appointed his grave to be with the wicked; or,
3. God gave, or appointed his grave with the wicked.
It seems to me that it is to be regarded as used impersonally, meaning that his grave was appointed with the wicked; and then the sense will be, that it was designed that he should be buried with the wicked, without designating the person or persons who intended it. So it is correctly rendered by Lowth and Noyes, His grave was appointed with the wicked.
With the wicked – It was designed that he should be buried with the wicked. The sense is, that it was not only intended to put him to death, but also to heap the highest indignity on him. Hence, it was intended to deny him an honorable burial, and to consign him to the same ignominious grave with the violators of the laws of God and man. One part of an ignominious punishment has often been to deny to him who has been eminent in guilt an honorable burial. Hence, it was said of Ahab 1Ki 21:19, that the dogs should lick his blood; and of Jezebel that the dogs should eat her 1Ki 21:23. Thus of the king of Babylon Isa 14:19, that he should be cast out of his grave as an abominable branch (see the note on that place). Hence, those who have been especially guilty are sometimes quartered, and their heads and other parts of the body suspended on posts, or they are hung in chains, and their flesh left to be devoured by the fowls of heaven.
So Josephus (Ant. iv. 8. 6), says, He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang on a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner. The idea here is, that it was intended to cast the highest possible indignity on the Messiah; not only to put him to death, but even to deny him the privilege of an honorable burial, and to commit him to the same grave with the wicked. How remarkably was this fulfilled! As a matter of course, since he was put to death with wicked people, he would naturally have been buried with them, unless there had been some special interposition in his case. He was given up to be treated as a criminal; he was made to take the vacated place of a murderer – Barabbas – on the cross; he was subjected to the same indignity and cruelty to which the two malefactors were; and it was evidently designed also that he should be buried in the same manner, and probably in the same grave. Thus in Joh 19:31, it is said thai the Jews, because it was the preparation, in order that their bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away; intending evidently that their death should be hurried in the same cruel manner, and that they should be buried in the same way. Who can but wonder at the striking accuracy of the prediction!
And with the rich – ( ashyr). The words he was, are here to be supplied. But he was with a rich man in his death? The particle (v), rendered and, is properly here adversative, and means but, yet. The meaning is, that although he had been executed with criminals, and it had been expected that he would be interred with them, yet he was associated with a rich man in his death; that is, in his burial. The purpose which had been cherished in regard to his burial was not accomplished. The word ashyr (from ashar, to be straight, to prosper, to be happy, and then to be rich), means properly the rich, and then the honorable and noble. It occurs very often in the Bible (see Taylors Concord.), and is in all cases in our English version rendered rich. Gesenius contends, however, that it sometimes is to be taken in a bad sense, and that it means proud, arrogant, impious, because riches are a source of pride, and pride to a Hebrew is synonymous with impiety.
He appeals to Job 27:19, in proof of this. But it is evident that the place in Job, The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered, may be understood as speaking of a rich man as he is commonly found; and the word there does not mean proud, or wicked, but it means a rich man who is without religion. In all places where the word occurs in the Bible, the primary idea is that of a rich man – though he may be righteous or wicked, pious or impious, a friend of God or an enemy. That is to be determined by the connection. And the natural and proper idea here is that of a man who is wealthy, though without any intimation with regard to his moral character. It is rather implied that the man referred to would have a character different from the wicked, with whom his grave was appointed. Several interpreters, however, of the highest charactor, have supposed that the word here refers to the ungodly, and means, that in his death he was associated with the ungodly.
Thus Calvin supposes that it refers to the Scribes and Pharisees, and the impious and violent Romans who rushed upon him to take his life. Luther remarks that it means, a rich man; one who gives himself to the pursuit of wealth; that is, an ungodly man. But the objection is insuperable that the word in the Bible never is used in this sense, to denote simply a wicked or an ungodly man. It may denote a rich man who is ungodly – but that must be determined by the connection. The simple idea in the word is that of wealth, but whether the person referred to be a man of fair or unfair, pure or impure character, is to be determined by other circumstances than the mere use of the word. So the word rich is used in our language, and in all languages. The principal reason why it has here been supposed to mean ungodly is, that the parallelism is supposed to require it. But this is not necessary. It may be designed to intimate that there was a distinction between the design which was cherished in regard to his burial, and the fact. It was intended that he should have been interred with the wicked; but in fact, he was with the rich in his death.
In his death – Margin, Deaths ( bemothayv). Lowth renders this, His tomb. He understands the Hebrew letter beth (b) as radical and not servile; and supposes that the word is bamoth (hills); that is, sepulchral hills. Tombs, he observes, correctly, were often hills or tumuli erected over the bodies of the dead; and he supposes that the word hill, or high place, became synonymous with a tomb, or sepulchre. This interpretation was first suggested by Aben Ezra, and has been approved by CEcolampadius, Zuingle, Drusius, Ikin, Kuinoel, and others. But the interpretation is liable to great objections.
1. It is opposed to all the ancient versions.
2. There is no evidence that the word bamoth is ever used except in one place (Eze 43:7, where it means also primarily high places, though there perhaps dedenoting a burial-place), in the sense of bomos, a tomb, or place of burial. It denotes a high place or height; a stronghold, a fastness, a fortress; and then an elevated place, where the rites of idolatry were celebrated; and though it is not improbable that those places became burial-places – as we bury in the vicinity of a place of worship yet the word simply and by itself does not denote a tumulus, or an elevated place of burial. The word here, therefore, is to be regarded as a noun from maveth, or moth, plural mothym, meaning the same as after his death – the grave. The plural is used instead of the singular in Eze 28:8-10; and also Job 21:32 : Yet he shall be brought to the grave; Margin, as Hebrew, graves. The sense, therefore, is, that after his death he would be with a man of wealth, but without determining anything in regard to his moral character.
The exact fulfillment of this may be seen in the account which is given of the manner of the burial of the Saviour by Joseph of Arimathea (Mat 27:57-60. Joseph was a rich man. He took the body, and wound it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, a tomb hewn out of a rock – that is, a grave designed for himself; such as a rich man would use, and where it was designed that a rich man should be laid. He was buried with spices Joh 19:39-40; embalmed with a large quantity of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight, in the mode in which the rich were usually interred. How different this from the interment of malefactors! How different from the way in which he would have been buried if he had been interred with them as it had been designed! And how very striking and minutely accurate this prophecy in circumstances which could not possibly have been the result of conjecture! How could a pretended prophet, seven hundred years before the event occurred, conjecture of one who was to be executed as a malefactor, and with malefactors, and who would in the ordinary course of events be buried with malefactors, conjecture that he would be rescued from such an ignominious burial by the interposition of a rich man, and buried in a grave designed for a man of affluence, and in the manner in which the wealthy are buried?
Because – ( al). This word here has probably the signification of although. It is used for al ‘asher. Thus, it is used in Job 16:17 : Not for any injustice in my hands; Hebrew, Although there is no injustice in my hands. The sense here demands this interpretation. According to our common version, the meaning is, that he was buried with the rich man because he had done no violence, and was guilty of no deceit; whereas it is rather to be taken in connection with the entire strain of the passage, and to be regarded as meaning, that he was wounded, rejected, put to death, and buried by the hands of men, although he had done no violence.
He had done no violence – The precise sense of the expression is, that he had not by harsh and injurious conduct provoked them to treat him in this manner, or deserved this treatment at their hands. In accordance with this, and evidently with this passage in his eye, the apostle Peter says of the Lord Jesus, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth 1Pe 2:20-22.
Neither was any deceit in his mouth – He was no deceiver, though he was regarded and treated as one. He was perfectly candid and sincere, perfectly true and holy. No one can doubt but this was exactly fulfilled in the Lord Jesus; and however it may be accounted for, it was true to the life, and it is applicable to him alone. Of what other dweller on the earth can it be said that there was no guile found in his mouth? Who else has lived who has always been perfectly free from deceit?
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 53:9
And He made his grave with the wicked
With the rich in His death:
Rich must mean wicked, just as poor often means godly.
(A. B. Davidson, D.D.)
The suffering Servant given a convicts grave
Having conceived Him to have been lawfully put to death, they consistently gave Him a convicts grave; they made His grave with the wicked, and He was with the felon in His death, though He was an innocent man–He had done no harm; neither was guile in His mouth. (Prof. G. A. Smith, D.D.)
With the rich in His death:
The meaning is, His grave was assigned to Him with criminals, and with a rich man after He had actually died a painful death, i.e. He was to have been laid where the bodies of dead criminals lie, but He came after His death to lie in a grave that had been intended for the corpse of a rich man. (F. Delitzsch, D.D.)
A prophecy of Messiah
I. SOMETHING FORETOLD CONCERNING THE MESSIAH, that is, that He shall make His grave, etc.
II. A REASON SUBJOINED, taken from His innocency. (J. Durham.)
Christ laid in the grave
In all the Evangelists it is clear that after death He was laid in the grave, and very particular notice is taken of it. Take here some reasons of this necessity.
1. That the unstaindeness and purity of Divine justice may appear, and that, therefore, the perfection of His satisfaction may be confirmed.
2. It is much for the manifestation of the great love of God, and of the rich condescending grace of the Mediator, who is not only content to die, but to be laid in the grave, and to suffer death to have a kind of dominion over Him for a time.
3. It is for the consolation of the believer and serves mightily to strengthen him against the fear of death and the grave. He may lie down quietly in the grave, because it was Christs bed, warmed, to say so, by Him.
4. It serves to confirm the truth of the resurrection of Christ. (J. Durham.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 9. With the rich in his death – “With the rich man was his tomb”] It may be necessary to introduce Bishop Lowth’s translation of this verse before we come to his very satisfactory criticisms: –
And his grave was appointed with the wicked;
But with the rich man was his tomb:
Although he had done no wrong,
Neither was there any guile in his mouth.
Among the various opinions which have been given on this passage, I have no doubt in giving my assent to that which makes the beth in bemothaiv radical, and renders it excelsa sua. This is mentioned by Aben Ezra as received by some in his time; and has been long since approved by Schindler, Drusius, and many other learned Christian interpreters.
The most simple tombs or monuments of old consisted of hillocks of earth heaped up over the grave; of which we have numerous examples in our own country, generally allowed to be of very high antiquity. The Romans called a monument of this sort very properly tumulus; and the Hebrews as properly bamoth, “high place,” for that is the form of the noun in the singular number; and sixteen MSS. and the two oldest editions express the word fully in this place, bamothaiv. Tumulus et collem et sepulchrum fuisse significat. Potest enim tumulus sine sepulchro interpretatione collis interdum accipi. Nam et terrae congestio super ossa tumulus dicitur. “Tumulus signifies a sepulchre with a hillock of earth raised over it. The word is sometimes restrained to the bank of earth; for the heaping up of the earth over the bones is named the tumulus.” – Servius, AEn. iii. 22. And to make the tumulus still more elevated and conspicuous, a pillar or some other ornament was often erected upon it: –
, ,
.
Odyss. xii. 14.
“A rising tomb, the silent dead to grace,
Fast by the roarings of the main we place;
The rising tomb a lofty column bore,
And high above it rose the tapering oar.”
POPE.
The tomb therefore might with great propriety be called the high place. The Hebrews might also call such a tomb bamoth, from the situation, for they generally chose to erect them on eminences. The sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, in which the body of Christ was laid, was upon a hill, Mount Calvary. See Isa 22:16, and the note there.
“It should be observed that the word bamothaiv is not formed from bamoth, the plural of bamah, the feminine noun, but from bamothim, the plural of a masculine noun, bamoth. This is noted because these two nouns have been negligently confounded with one another, and absurdly reduced to one by very learned men. So Buxtorf, lex. in voc. bamah, represents bamotey, though plainly without any pronoun suffixed, as it governs the word arets following it, as only another form of bamoth; whereas the truth is, that bamoth and bamothim are different words, and have through the whole Bible very different significations; bamah, whether occurring in the singular or plural number, always signifying a place or places of worship; and bamothim always signifying heights. Thus in De 32:13; Isa 58:14; Am 4:13; and Mic 1:3, bamothey arets signifies ‘the heights of the earth;’ Isa 14:14, bamothey ab, ‘the heights of the clouds;’ and in Job 9:8, bamothey yam, ‘the heights of the sea,’ i.e., the high waves of the sea, as Virgil calls a wave praeruptus aqua mons, ‘a broken mountain of water.’ These being all the places where this word occurs without a suffix, the sense of it seems nearly determined by them. It occurs in other instances with a pronoun suffixed, which confirm this signification. Unluckily, our English Bible has not distinguished the feminine noun bamah from the masculine singular noun bamoth; and has consequently always given the signification of the latter to the former, always rendering it a high place; whereas the true sense of the word appears plainly to be, in the very numerous passages in which it occurs, ‘a place of worship,’ or ‘a sacred court,’ or ‘a sacred inclosure;’ whether appropriated to the worship of idols or to that of the true God, for it is used of both, passim. Now as the Jewish graves are shown, from 2Ch 32:33, and Isa 22:16, to have been in high situations, to which may be added the custom of another eastern nation from Osbeck’s Travels, who says, vol. i. p. 339, ‘the Chinese graves are made on the side of hills;’ ‘his heights’ becomes a very easy metaphor to express ‘his sepulchre.'” – JUBB.
The exact completion of this prophecy will be fully shown by adding here the several circumstances of the burial of Jesus, collected from the accounts of the evangelists: –
“There was a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, a member of the sanhedrin, and of a respectable character, who had not consented to their counsel and act; he went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus: and he laid it in his own new tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock, near to the place where Jesus was crucified; having first wound it in fine linen with spices, as the manner of the Jews was to bury the rich and great.”
It has been supposed that kibro, his grave, and bemothaiv, in his death, may have been transposed, as also the prefix be originally placed before reshaim, the wicked. Thus: –
mothaiv eth bireshayim vaiyitten
kibro ashir veeth
Yea, his death was appointed among the wicked,
And with a rich man, his tomb.
By these alterations it is supposed the text would be freed from all embarrassment. But see the preceding notes of Bishop Lowth, and the various readings of De Rossi, in loc.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He made his grave with the wicked; and although he did not die for his own, but only for his peoples sins, yet he was willing to die like a malefactor, or like a sinner, as all other men are, and to be put into the grave, as they used to be; which was a further degree of his humiliation. He saith, he made his grave, because this was Christs own act, and he willingly yielded up himself to death and burial. And that which follows, with the wicked, doth not note the sameness of place, as if he should be buried in the same grave with ether malefactors, but the sameness of condition; as when David prayeth, Psa 26:9, Gather not my soul (to wit, by death) with sinners, he doth not mean it of the same grave, but of the same state of the dead.
With the rich in his death: this passage is thought by many to signify that Christ should be buried in the sepulchre of Joseph, who is said to be both rich, Mat 27:57, and honourable, Mar 15:43, which they conceive to be intimated as a token of favour and honour showed to him; which to me seems not probable, partly because this disagrees with the former clause, which confessedly speaks of the dishonour which was done to him; and partly because the burial of Christ, whatsoever circumstances it was attended with, is ever mentioned in Scripture as a part of his humiliation, Ac 2:24,27. And it seems more reasonable, and more agreeable to the usage of the Holy Scripture, that this clause should design the same thing with the former, and that by rich he means the same persons whom he now called wicked, not as if all rich men were or must needs be wicked, but because for the most part they are so; upon which ground riches and rich men do commonly pass under an ill name in Scripture; of which see Psa 37:10; 49:6; Luk 6:24; 18:24; Jam 1:11; 5:1.
In his death, Heb. in or at (or after, as this particle is frequently taken, as hath been already noted) his deaths; for Christs death might well be called deaths, in the plural number, because he underwent many kinds of death, and many deadly dangers and pains, which are frequently called by the name of death in Scripture, of which instances have been formerly given; and he might say, with no less truth than Paul did, 1Co 15:31, I die daily, and 2Co 11:23. I was in deaths oft. Because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth: this some suppose to be added as a reason of the last branch of the foregoing clause, why God so overruled matters by his providence, that Christ should not be buried in the same grave, or in the same ignominious manner, as malefactors were, but in a more honourable manner, in Josephs own tomb. But the last part of the foregoing clause cannot, without violence, be pulled asunder from the former, wherewith it is so closely joined, not only by a conjunction copulative, and, but also by being under the government of the same verb; and therefore this latter clause of the verse, if thus rendered, must be added as the reason of what is said to be done in the former. And so the sense of the place may be thus conceived, This was all the reward of the unspotted innocency of all his words and actions, to be thus ignominiously used. But these words may well be and are otherwise rendered, both by Jewish and Christian interpreters, either thus, although he had done, &c., or rather thus, not for (as these two same particles placed in the very same order are rendered by our translator, and others, Job 16:17) any violence (or injury, or iniquity) which he had done, nor for any deceit which was in his mouth; not for his own sins, but, as hath been said before, for his peoples sins; in which translation there is nothing supplied but what is most frequent in Scripture also.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. Rather, “His grave wasappointed,” or “they appointed Him His grave”[HENGSTENBERG]; that is,they intended (by crucifying Him with two thieves, Mt27:38) that He should have His grave “with the wicked.”Compare Joh 19:31, the denialof honorable burial being accounted a great ignominy (see on Isa14:19; Jer 26:23).
and with . . . richrather,”but He was with a rich man,” c. GESENIUS,for the parallelism to “the wicked,” translates “ungodly”(the effect of riches being to make one ungodly) but theHebrew everywhere means “rich,” never by itselfungodly; the parallelism, too, is one of contrast; namely, betweentheir design and the fact, as it was ordered by God(Mat 27:57; Mar 15:43-46;Joh 19:39; Joh 19:40);two rich men honored Him at His death, Joseph of Arimatha, andNicodemus.
in his deathHebrew,“deaths.” LOWTHtranslates, “His tomb”; bamoth, from a differentroot, meaning “high places,” and so mounds for sepulture(Eze 43:7). But all theversions oppose this, and the Hebrew hardly admits it. Rathertranslate, “after His death” [HENGSTENBERG];as we say, “at His death.” The plural,“deaths,” intensifies the force; as Adam by sin “dyingdied” (Ge 2:17, Margin);that is, incurred death, physical and spiritual. So Messiah, Hissubstitute, endured death in both senses; spiritual, during Histemporary abandonment by the Father; physical, when He gave up theghost.
becauserather, as thesense demands (so in Job 16:17),”although He had done no,” c. [HENGSTENBERG],(1Pe 2:20-22 1Jn 3:5).
violencethat is,wrong.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,…. These words are generally supposed to refer to a fact that was afterwards done; that Christ, who died with wicked men, as if he himself had been one, was buried in a rich man’s grave. Could the words admit of the following transposition, they would exactly agree with it, “and he made his grave with the rich; and with the wicked in his death”; for he died between two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man. Or the meaning perhaps in general is, that, after his death, both rich men and wicked men were concerned in his sepulchre, and about his grave; two rich men, Nicodemus and Joseph, in taking down his body from the cross, in embalming it, and in laying it in the tomb of the latter; and wicked men, Roman soldiers, were employed in guarding the sepulchre, that his disciples might not take away the body. Or the sense is, “he” the people, the nation of the Jews, through whose enmity against him he suffered death, “gave”, intended, and designed, that “his grave” should be with “the wicked”; and therefore accused him to the Roman governor, and got him condemned capitally, and condemned to a Roman death, crucifixion, that he might be buried where such sort of persons usually were; and then it may be supplied, “but he made it”; that is, God ordered and appointed, in his overruling providence, that it should be “with the rich in his death”, as it was. Aben Ezra observes, that the word , which we translate “in his death”, signifies a structure over a grave, “a sepulchral monument”; and then it may be rendered impersonally thus, “his grave was put or placed with the wicked, but his tomb”, or sepulchral monument, was “with the rich”; his grave was indeed put under the care and custody of the wicked soldiers; yet a famous tomb being erected over it, at the expense of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathaea, which was designed for himself, made the burial of Christ honourable: which honour was done him,
because he had done no violence: or injury to any man’s person or property; had not been guilty of rapine and oppression, theft and robbery; murder and cruelty; he had not been a stirrer up of sedition, an encourager of mobs, riots, and tumults, to the harm of the civil government:
neither was any deceit in his mouth: no false doctrine was delivered by him; he was no deceiver of the people, as he was charged; he did not attempt to seduce them from the true worship of God, or persuade them to believe anything contrary to the law of Moses, and the prophets; he was no enemy to church or state, nor indeed guilty of any manner of sin, nor given to any arts of trick and dissimulation; see 1Pe 2:22. Some render the words, “though” y “he had done no violence”, c. and connect them with the following.
y “quamvis”, Vatablus, Calvin, Noldius “licet”, Syr. Interpr.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After this description in Isa 53:7 of the patience with which He suffered, and in Isa 53:8 of the manner in which He died, there follows a retrospective glance at His burial. “And they assigned Him His grave with sinners, and with a rich man in His martyrdom, because He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth.” The subject to (assigned) is not Jehovah, although this would not be impossible, since has Jehovah as the latent subject; but it would be irreconcilable with Isa 53:10, where Jehovah is introduced as the subject with antithetical prominence. It would be better to assume that “my people” is the subject; but as this would make it appear as if the statement introduced in Isa 53:8 with k (for) were continued here, we seem compelled to refer it to doro (His generation), which occurs in the principal clause. No objection could be offered to our regarding “His own generation” as the subject; but doro is somewhat too far removed for this; and if the prophet had had the contemporaries of the sufferer in his mind, he would most likely have used a plural verb ( vayyitt e nu ). Some, therefore, supply a personal subject of the most general kind to yitten (which occurs even with a neuter subject, like the German es gibt , Fr. il y a , Eng. “there is;” cf., Pro 13:10): “they ( on) gave;” and looking at the history of the fulfilment, we confess that this is the rendering we prefer. In fact, without the commentary supplied by the fulfilment, it would be impossible to understand Isa 53:9 at all. The earlier translators did great violence to the text, and yet failed to bring out any admissible thought. And the explanation which is most generally adopted now, viz., that is the synonymous parallel to (as even Luther rendered it, “and died like a rich man,” with the marginal gloss, “a rich man who sets all his heart upon riches, i.e., a wicked man”), is also untenable; for even granting that ashir could be proved by examples to be sometimes used as synonymous with , as and are as synonyms of , this would be just the passage in which it would be least possible to sustain any such use of the word; since he who finds his grave with rich men, whether with the godly or the ungodly, would thereby have received a decent, and even honourable burial. This is so thoroughly sustained by experience, as to need no confirmation from such passages as Job 21:32. Hitzig has very good ground, therefore, for opposing this “synonymous” explanation; but when he adopts the rendering lapsator , after the Arabic tur , this is quite as much in opposition to Arabic usage (according to which this word merely signifies a person who falls into error, and makes a mistake in speaking), as it is to the Hebrew. Ewald changes into (a word which has no existence); and Bttcher alters it into , which is comparatively the best suggestion of all. Hofmann connects the two words , “men who have become rich through the murders that they have treacherously caused” (though without being able to adduce any proof that moth is ever applied to the death which one person inflicts upon another). At any rate, all these attempts spring from the indisputable assumption, that to be rich is not in itself a sin which deserves a dishonourable burial, to say nothing of its receiving one.
If, therefore, and are not kindred ideas, they must be antithetical; but it is no easier to establish a purely ethical antithesis than an ethical coincidence. If, however, we take the word as suggesting the idea of persons found guilty, or criminals (an explanation which the juridical context of the passage well sustains; see at Isa 50:9), we get a contrast which our own usage of speech also draws between a rich man who is living in the enjoyment of his own possessions, and a delinquent who has become impoverished to the utmost, through hatred, condemnation, ruin. And if we reflect that the Jewish rulers would have given to Jesus the same dishonourable burial as to the two thieves, but that the Roman authorities handed over the body to Joseph the Arimathaean, a “rich man” (Mat 27:57), who placed it in the sepulchre in his own garden, we see an agreement at once between the gospel history and the prophetic words, which could only be the work of the God of both the prophecy and its fulfilment, inasmuch as no suspicion could possibly arise of there having been any human design of bringing the former into conformity with the latter. But if it be objected, that according to the parallel the ashr must be regarded as dead, quite as much as the resham , we admit the force of this objection, and should explain it in this way: “They assigned Him His grave with criminals, and after He had actually died a martyr’s death, with a rich man;” i.e., He was to have lain where the bodies of criminals lie, but He was really laid in a grave that was intended for the corpse of a rich man.
(Note: A clairvoyant once said of the Lord: “Died like a criminal; buried like a prince of the earth” (vid., Psychol. pp. 262, 364).)
The rendering adopted by Vitringa and others, “and He was with a rich man in his death,” is open to this objection, that such a clause, to be quite free from ambiguity, would require . Hengstenberg and Stier very properly refer both and , which must be repeated in thought, to the second clause as well as the first. The rendering tumulum ejus must be rejected, since bamah never has this meaning; and , which is the pointing sustained by three Codd., would not be m ausolea , but a lofty burial-hill, after the fashion of the Hnengrber (certain “giants’ graves,” or barrows, in Holstein and Saxony).
(Note: The usage of the language shows clearly that bamah had originally the meaning of “height” (e.g., 2Sa 1:19). The primary meaning suggested by Bttcher, of locus clausus, septus (from = , Arab. bhm ), cannot be sustained. We still hold that is the expanded , and an ascent, steep place, or stair. In the Talmud, bamah is equivalent to , an altar, and (Syr. bim ) equivalent to the of the orator and judge; , root , like the Hebrew bamah , signifies literally an elevation, and actually occurs in the sense of a sepulchral hill, which this never has, not even in Eze 43:7.)
is a plur. exaggerativus here, as in Eze 28:10 (compare m e mothe in Eze 28:8 and Jer 16:4); it is applied to a violent death, the very pain of which makes it like dying again and again. The first clause states with whom they at first assigned Him His grave; the second with whom it was assigned Him, after He had really died a painful death. “Of course,” as F. Philippi observes, “this was not a thorough compensation for the ignominy of having died the death of a criminal; but the honourable burial, granted to one who had been ignominiously put to death, showed that there must be something very remarkable about Him. It was the beginning of the glorification which commenced with His death.” If we have correctly interpreted the second clause, there can be no doubt in our minds, since we cannot shake the word of God like a kaleidoscope, and multiply the sensus complex, as Stier does, that (= ) does not mean “notwithstanding that not,” as in Job 16:17, but “because not,” like in Gen 31:20. The reason why the Servant of God received such honourable treatment immediately after His ignominious martyrdom, was to be found in His freedom from sin, in the fact that He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth (lxx and 1Pe 2:22, where the clause is correctly rendered ). His actions were invariably prompted by pure love, and His speech consisted of unclouded sincerity and truth.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
9. And he laid open to wicked men his grave. Jerome renders it, “And he gave wicked men for burial;” as if the Prophet spake of the punishment by which the Lord took vengeance for the sin of wicked men, who crucified Christ. But he rather speaks of the death of Christ, and of the fruit of it, and says nothing about that revenge. Others think that the particle את (eth) denotes comparison, in the same manner as the particle כ (caph). “He gave his grave as of wicked men.” Others interpret את (eth) to mean with, and explain “the rich man” to be Joseph of Arimathea, in whose sepulcher Christ was buried. (Mat 27:60; Joh 19:38) But such an interpretation is too unnatural. I rather think that the real meaning is, that God the Father delivered Christ into the hands of wicked men.
And to the rich man his death. I consider the singular עשיר (gnashir,) “the rich man,” to be put for the plural עשרים (gnashirim), as is frequently done by Hebrew writers. I see no reason why Oecolampadius rendered it “high places.” (52) By “rich men” he means “violent men;” for men grow haughty and disdainful on account of their riches, and abuse their wealth to savage cruelty. And thus by the terms “wicked men” and “rich men” the same thing, in my opinion, is denoted. He means, therefore, that Christ was exposed to the reproaches, and insolence, and lawless passions of wicked men. For, on the one hand, the Pharisees and priests (Mat 26:66) rush upon him with unbridled rage and foul slander; on the other hand, Pilate, though well aware of his innocence, (Mar 15:14) condemns him in opposition to law and justice; and again, on another hand, the Roman soldiers, ready for every kind of barbarity, cruelly and wickedly execute the cruel and wicked sentence. (Joh 19:16) Who would not conclude that Christ was crushed and “buried” amidst those impious and bloody hands?
I consider the word grave to be here used metaphorically, because wicked and violent men might be said to have overwhelmed him. If it be objected that Christ had an honorable burial, I reply, that burial was the commencement of a glorious resurrection; but at present the Prophet speaks of death, which is often denoted by “the grave.” I consider this, therefore, to be the real meaning, though I wish to leave every person free to form his own opinion.
Though he did no iniquity. על (gnal) signifies “because;” but sometimes it is used in the sense of “though,” as in this passage. (53) Here the Prophet applauds the innocence of Christ, not only in order to defend him from slander, but to speak highly of the benefit of his death, that we may not think that he suffered by chance. Though innocent, he suffered by the decree of God; and therefore it was for our sake, and not for his own, that he suffered. He bore the punishment which was due to us.
Neither was there deceit in his mouth. In two words he describes the perfect innocence of Christ; namely, that he never offended either in deed or in word. That this cannot be said of any mortal man is universally acknowledged, and hence it follows that it applies to Christ alone.
(52) “ Je ne voy point de raison pourquoy OEcolampade a traduit, II a expose ses hants lieux au riche.” “I see no reason why OEcolampadius translated it, ‘He laid open his high places to the rich man.’”
(53) “ על ( gnal), for על אשר ( gnal asher), is properly a causative particle, equivalent to ‘for that’ or ‘because;’ but most interpreters regard it as equivalent to ‘although,’ which is more agreeable to our idiom in this connection. Knobel observes, with great naivete, that the reference of this verse to the burial of Christ has found its way into the exposition of the passage in connection with its general application to that subject; to which we may add, that it can only find its way out in connection with a wish to get rid of that unwelcome application. At the same time it must be observed, that even if עשיר ( gnashir) be taken in the sense of ‘wicked,’ although we lose the striking allusion to the burial of Christ in the sepulcher of Joseph, the verse is still applicable to his burial, as the last clause then means, like the first, that they appointed him his grave with malefactors.” Alexander
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE BURIAL OF JESUS
Isa. 53:9. And He made His grave with the wicked, &c.
The death and resurrection of Christ are frequently dwelt upon by preachers and writers; but His burial is seldom distinctly alluded to. Yet it is spoken of in Scripture as a most important fact (Act. 13:29; 1Co. 15:4; Eph. 4:9-10).
I. THE HONOURABLE BURIAL GRANTED TO JESUS WHO HAD BEEN SO IGNOMINIOUSLY PUT TO DEATH.
1. He was to have been buried with criminals. They appointed Him His grave with criminals (Dr. Calkins). Not satisfied with His sufferings and death, they sought to insult Him even in death by wishing to bury His corpse with criminals (Mat. 27:38; Joh. 19:31). They intended to heap the highest possible indignity upon Him, denying him the privilege of an honourable burial (1Ki. 21:19; Isa. 14:19; Jer. 26:23). As a matter of course, since He was put to death with wicked men, He would naturally have been buried with them, unless there had been some special interposition in His case. He was given up to be treated as a criminal; He was made to take the place of a murderer, Barabbas, on the cross; He was subjected to the same indignity and cruelty to which the two malefactors were, and it was evidently designed also that He should be buried in the same manner, and probably in the same grave (Joh. 19:31). Who can but wonder at the striking accuracy of the prediction?
2. He was really buried in a grave that was intended for the corpse of a rich man. With a rich man after His death. The purpose which had been cherished in regard to His burial was not accomplished. He was buried by persons of distinction: Joseph and Nicodemusmen of ranksecret disciples now emboldened. How different this from the interment of malefactors! How striking and accurate the fulfilment of prophecy! (Mat. 27:57-60; Joh. 19:39-40). He who died as a malefactor was buried as a king. All the more remarkable because during His life He was associated with the poor, and was Himself poor. The humiliation was over, and the exaltation was begun!
II. THE REASON WHY JESUS RECEIVED SUCH HONOURABLE TREATMENT. It was found in the fact
1. That He had done no wrong. Because, rather, although He had done no violence,had not by harsh and injurious conduct provoked such treatment, or in any way deserved it at their hands. He was perfectly innocentsuffered without having committed any crime. To none did He do wrong. He was charged with perverting the nation and sowing sedition, but the charge was utterly false. He had done no violence, but went about doing good. His actions were always prompted by purest benevolence. Evidently with this passage in view, the Apostle Peter says of the Lord Jesus: Who did no sin, &c. (1Pe. 2:20). Those who knew Him best spake thus. Well did Peter remember the unsullied purity, the loving gentleness, the high principles of our Lord. As he looked back on that life, it must have seemed like a pure pellucid stream flowing amid charred unsightly rocks.
2. That there was no deceit in His mouth. He was no deceiver, though He was regarded and treated as one. He was perfectly candid and sincere, true and holy. He was in all respects what He professed to be, and He imposed on no one by any false and unfounded claim (Heb. 7:26; 1Pe. 2:22). Duplicity, craft, and deceit are the accustomed methods of false teachers. He neither pandered to the rich nor flattered the poor. When in the greatest peril, He adopts no ingenious arguments nor methods for escape. All He said was plain, undisguised, unclouded, bold. He never disguised His abhorrence of falsehood. He did not promise more than He intended to perform. He did not hide from His followers the consequences of their position: Ye must be hated, &c. None of His enemies could take up that challenge of His, Which of you convicteth me of sin? The judge that tried Him declared, I find no fault in Him, and the centurion that executed Him professed that certainly He was a righteous man.
Thus, by Divine arrangement, Jesus received such honourable treatment immediately after His ignominious death as a vindication of His spotless character.
III. PRACTICAL LESSONS SUGGESTED BY THE HONOURABLE BURIAL OF JESUS.
1. The character of Jesus is unique. He stands alone among men. He was spotlessly pure in the midst of universal pollution. Then He must be something more than a mere man. Truly this is THE SON OF GOD. How admirably qualified is He to act as our substitute, and to present a sacrifice for our sin! Had He been guilty of a single sin, what could He have done for us? of what merit His obedience? of what value His death? of what efficacy His intercession?
2. The purity of Jesus in word and deed should be sought by us. Here on earth, in flesh and blood, and under the conditions to which men in general are subject, He exhibited a perfect character, and so stands before us as a true, complete, and universal pattern and example. We are commanded to be imitators of Him (Eph. 5:1; 1Pe. 2:21). Let us follow Him as if we trod exactly behind Him. Let there be the closest imitation. Take heed to your deceitful heart (Psa. 32:2). Guard against deceit of mouth (Psa. 120:3), and deceit in practice, &c. If we suffer, let us be careful that it shall not be on account of our faults. Let us seek grace so to live as not to deserve the reproaches of others, and to be able to bear them with patience if we are called to suffer them. The purity of Jesus can never be congenial to us until our hearts are regenerated.
3. The burial of Jesus should divest the grave of its terror. These bodies of ours must fail and faint and die, and go down to the cold grave to return to their native dust. What then? Shall we who are risen with Christ, dread to rest where He Himself lay? Shall we fear to be consigned to the place in which He, who is the resurrection and the life, reposed? Shall we doubt that He will bring us forth in triumph from the dominion of the grave; that He will clothe us with a body all beauteous and immortal like His own, &c.? The darkness of the grave is the forerunner of the unparalleled brightness of the resurrection life. Come, see the place where the Lord lay, and learn to view without fear your own final resting-place, and rejoice in the assurance that His resurrection is the pledge and earnest of your own.A. Tucker.
EXPIATION
Isa. 53:10. Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin.
Both Jews and Gentiles knew pretty well what an offering for sin meant. The Gentiles had been in the habit of offering sacrifices. The Jews, however, had by far the clearer idea of it. What was meant by a sin-offering? This was always the idea of a sin-offeringa perfect victim taking the place of the offender.
Christ has been made by God an offering for sin. Oh, that we may be able to do in reality what the Jew did in symbol! May we put our hand upon the head of Christ Jesus; as we see Him offered up upon the cross for guilty men, may we know that our sins are transferred to Him!
I. SIN DESERVES AND DEMANDS PUNISHMENT.
Some say that there is no reason in sin itself why it should be punished, but that God punishes offences for the sake of society at large. This is what is called the governmental theorythat it is necessary for the maintenance of good order that an offender should be punished, but that there is nothing in sin itself which absolutely requires a penalty. Now, we assert, and we believe we have Gods warrant for it, that sin intrinsically and in itself demands and deserves the just anger of God, and that that anger should be displayed in the form of a punishment. To establish this, let me appeal to the conscience, not of a man who has, by years of sin, dwindled it down to the very lowest degree, but of an awakened sinner under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Ask this man, who is now really in the possession of his true senses, whether he believes that sin deserves punishment, and his answer will be quick, sharp, and decisiveDeserve it? Ay, indeed; and the wonder is that I have not suffered it. I feel that if God should smite me now, without hope or offer of mercy, to the lowest hell, I should only have what I justly deserve; and I feel that if I be not punished for my sins, or if there be not some plan found by which my sin can be punished in another, I cannot understand how God can be just at all. How shall He be the Judge of all the earth if He suffer offences to go unpunished? There has been a dispute whether men have any innate ideas, but surely this idea is in us as early as anything, that virtue deserves reward, and sin deserves punishment. Add to this, that God has absolutely declared His displeasure against sin itself (Jer. 44:4; Deu. 25:16, &c). There is nothing more clear in Scripture than the truth that sin is in itself so detestable to God that He must and will put forth His tremendous strength to crush it, and to make the offender feel that it is an evil and a bitter thing to offend against the Most High (H. E. I., 2281, 2282).
The other idea, that sin is only to be punished for the sake of the community, involves injustice. If I am to be damned for the sake of other people, I demur to it. If my sin intrinsically deserves the wrath of God, and I am sent to perdition as the result of this fact, I have nothing to say. Conscience binds my tongue. But if I am told that I am only sent there as a part of a scheme of moral government, and that I am sent into torment to impress others with a sense of right, I ask that some one else should have the place of preacher to the people, and that I may be one of those whose felicity it shall be to be preached to, for I see no reason in justice why I should be selected as the victim. Really, when men run away from the simplicities of the Gospel in order to make Jehovah more kind, it is strange how unjust and unkind they make Him.
The reverse of this doctrine, that sin demands punishment, may be used to prove it, for it is highly immoral, dangerous, and opens the flood-gates of licentiousness to teach that sin can go unpunished. If sin deserve not to be punished, what is Tophet but injustice on a monstrous scale? Go and preach this in hell, and you will have quenched the fire which is for ever to burn, and the worm of conscience will die. And then come to earth, and go, like Jonah went, though with another message than Jonah carried, through the streets and thoroughfares of the exceeding great city, and proclaim that sin is not to be punished for its own intrinsic desert and baseness. But, if you expect your prophecy to be believed, enlarge the number of your jails, and seek for fresh fields for transportation in the interests of society; for if any doctrine can breed villains, this will.
It is written clearly upon the conscience of every one of us, that sin must be punished. Here are you and I brought into this dilemmawe have sinned, and we must be punished for it: it is impossible, absolutely, that sin can be forgiven without a sacrifice: God must be just, if heaven falls. But God, in His infinite wisdom, has devised a way by which justice can be satisfied, and yet mercy be triumphant. Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, took upon Himself the form of man, and offered unto divine justice that which was accepted as an equivalent for the punishment due to all His people.
II. THE PROVISION AND ACCEPTANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE FOR SINNERS IS AN ACT OF GRACE.
It is no act of grace for a person to accept a pecuniary debt on my behalf of another person. If I owe a man twenty pounds, it is no matter to him who shall pay the twenty pounds, so long as it is paid. But it is not so in penal matters. If a man be condemned to be imprisoned, there is no law, no justice which can compel the lawgiver to accept a substitute for him. If the sovereign should permit another to suffer in his stead, it must be the sovereigns own act and deed; he must use his own discretion as to whether he will accept the substitute or not, and if he do so, it is an act of grace. In Gods case, if He had said, in the infinite sovereignty of His absolute will, I will have no substitute, but each man shall suffer for himself, he who sinneth shall die, none could have murmured. It was grace, and only grace which led God to say, I will accept a substitute.
This grace of God is yet further magnified in the providing of such a substitute as Christon Christs part that He should give up Himself, the prince of life, to die; the king of glory to be despised and rejected of men. Think of the unexampled love which shines in Christs gift of Himself. But the Father gives the Son (Joh. 3:16). To give your wealth is something, if you make yourself poor, but to give your child is something more. I implore you, do not look upon the sacrifice of Christ as an act of mere vengeance on the Fathers part. Never imagine that Jesus died to make the Father complacent towards us. Jesus death is the effect of overwhelming and infinite love on the Fathers part. Never indulge the atrocious thought that there was justice, and justice only here; but magnify the love and pity of God in that He did devise and accomplish the great plan of salvation by an atoning sacrifice (H. E. I. 390, 23192321).
III. JESUS IS THE MOST FITTING PERSON TO BE A SUBSTITUTE, AND HIS WORK IS THE MOST FITTING WORK TO BE A SATISFACTION.
Consider what sort of a mediator was needed. He must be one who had no debt of his own. If Christ had been at all under the law naturally, if it had been His duty to do what it is our duty to do, it is plain He could only have lived for Himself; and if He had any sin of His own, He could only have died for Himself, seeing His obligations to do and to suffer would have been His just due to the righteousness and the vengeance of God. Jesus Christ was perfectly exempt from service, and therefore could volunteer to undertake it for our sake.
There was needed, also, one of the same nature with us. Such was Jesus Christ. For this purpose He became man. Made in all points like unto us, being a man, and standing exactly in a mans place, becoming a real Adam, standing quite in the first Adams place, He was a fit person to become a substitute for us.
The dignity of His sacred person made Him the most proper substitute. A mere man could at most be a substitute for one other man. Crush him as you will, and make him feel in his life every pang which flesh is heir to, but he can only suffer what one man would have suffered. He could not even then have suffered an equivalent for that eternal misery which the ungodly deserve; and if he were a mere man, he must suffer precisely the same. A difference may be made in the penalty, when there is a difference in the person, but if the person be the same, the penalty must be exactly the same in degree and quality. But the dignity of the Son of God, the dignity of His nature, changes the whole matter; it puts such a singular efficacy into every groan and every pang, that it needs not that His pang should be eternal, or that He should die a second death; it adds a special force to the substitution, and thus one bleeding Saviour can make atonement for millions of sinful men, and the Captain of our salvation can bring multitudes unto glory.
One other condition needs to be fulfilled. The person so free from personal service, and so truly in our nature, and yet so exalted in person, should also be accepted and ordained of God. Our text gives this a full solution, in that it says, He shall make His soul an offering for sin. Christ did not make Himself a sin-offering without a warrant from the Most High: God made Him so. The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
IV. CHRISTS WORK AND THE EFFECTS OF THAT WORK ARE NOW COMPLETE.
Christ has made an atonement so complete that He never need suffer again. The death-knell of the penalty rings in the dying words of the Saviour, It is finished. Do you ask for a proof of this? Remember that Christ rose again from the dead. If he had not completed His work of penalty-suffering, He would have been left in the tomb till now. More than that; He has ascended up on high. Think you He would have returned thither with unexpiated sin red upon His garments? Do you suppose He would have ascended to the rest and to the reward of an accomplished work?
Complete also in its effects. There is now complete pardon for every soul which believeth in Christ. You need not do anything to make the atonement of Christ sufficient to pardon you. It wants no ekeing outpardon, full and free, is now presented in the name of Jesus, proclaimed to every creature under heaven.C. H. Spurgeon: Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, No. 561.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(9) And he made his grave . . .Literally, one (or, they) assigned him a grave . . . The words are often interpreted as fulfilled in our Lords crucifixion between the two robbers and his burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. It has to be noted, however, (1) that this requires an inversion of the clauses; (2) that it introduces a feature scarcely in harmony with the general drift of the description; (3) that the laws of parallelism require us to take the rich of one clause as corresponding to the wicked of the other, i.e., as in the sense of the wrongfully rich, the oppressors, as in Psa. 49:6; Psa. 49:16; Psa. 73:3-5. Men assigned to the Servant not the burial of a saint, with reverence and honour (such, e.g., as that of Stephen, Act. 8:2), but that of an unjust oppressor, for whom no man lamented, saying, Ah lord! Ah my brother! Ah his glory! (Jer. 22:18), and this although (not because) he had done no violence to deserve it. (Comp. Job. 16:17.) The rendering because has been adopted as giving a reason for the honourable burial which, it has been assumed, the words imply. It may be questioned, however, when we remember Isaiahs words as to Shebna (Isa. 22:16), whether he would have looked on such a burial as that recorded in the Gospels, clandestine, and with no public lamentation, as an adequate recognition of the holiness of the victim. The point of the last two clauses is that they declare emphatically the absolute rectitude of the sufferer in act, his absolute veracity in speech.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
9. Made his grave with the wicked with the rich How circumstantial the facts in this verse! As if himself were a malefactor, he suffered and died with malefactors. But from the first moment afterward, not the indecencies common to malefactors’ burials attended his dead body, but honour in a high degree; his burial was most honourable. His spirit, also, (1Pe 3:19,) rose to more than its normal vigour; then body and spirit were reunited in immortal resurrection.
Because Here is a sudden change in the thought directed to a re-attestation of the sufferer’s innocence.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
And they made his grave with the wicked ones,
And with a rich man in his death (literally ‘deaths’).
Although he had done no violence,
Neither was any deceit in his mouth.’
The wicked and the rich are often looked at synonymously (compare Psa 52:7). The rich tended to behave wickedly, and especially dishonestly and deceitfully (Mic 6:12). That is regularly how they became and stayed rich (compare Pro 18:23; Pro 28:6; Pro 28:20; Jer 17:11). Thus the idea here is that although He would be non-violent and without deceit He would be treated as though He was guilty of both violence and deceit by being placed in His grave alongside wicked people. Indeed it would include being in the grave of ‘a rich man’, possibly signifying here someone excessively wicked. As it would not seemingly be possible for someone both to have his grave with the wicked, and also with a rich man, (the emphasised ideas being slightly different), what is primarily intended is that He will be numbered among all that is sinful. His burial will be of One Who is seen as summing up in Himself every kind of wickedness.
Thus He would be identified with both the most outwardly and openly sinful of men and with the most deceitful and blameworthy, the rich, in His death, and He Who had been characterised by poverty, such an idea containing some idea of virtue, would find Himself placed in His death with ‘a rich man’, because even that amount of virtue was denied Him. The rich man would be honoured by his fellows but hated by the majority. So this added to His shame. That God actually arranged that He was laid in a godly rich man’s grave was one of those unexpected extra fulfilments of prophecy that so often occur.
This connecting of the twin ideas of being laid both with the extremely wicked and with the rich, both of whom would be despised by the majority and seen as deserving of God’s retribution (compare Jesus’ story of ‘the rich man’ which also applies to the term rich the idea of one deserving of judgment – Luk 16:19), is a further example of the way in which the writer is determined to apply to the One described here the totality of the miseries and condemnations that could be applied, thus drawing on all possible ways of describing His suffering and humiliation
The plural for deaths may be emphasising the fact of His death, He really died. Or that it was an extreme and dreadful death. Or it may be distinguishing His death as something special. But plurals of this nature with some special kind of significance are quite common.
So the verdict of the court was ‘wicked and deceitful’. The verdict of God was, ‘He had done no violence neither was any deceit found in His mouth’. The latter phrase gains deeply in significance when we remember that Isaiah was very conscious of the deceitfulness of his own mouth (Isa 6:5). And Jesus Himself saw sins of the mouth as so heinous that He said all judgment would be based on them (Mat 12:37). So we are justified in seeing here the suggestion that the Servant was sinless.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Isa 53:9. And he made his grave, &c. And he committed his burial to the wicked, and to the rich his death, &c. Or, And his burial was appointed with the wicked; but he was with the rich in his death, &c. Or, And he [the people] made his grave with the wicked, but it shall be with the rich after his death; because, &c. Chandler. “His sepulchre shall be a proof of his innocence, as well as of his death. The people, to carry their contempt of him even to the grave, designed to bury him with the common malefactors, Isa 53:12.; but God disposed it otherwise: so that he who was too poor to provide a sepulchre for himself, was honourably interred at the expence of the rich; moved thereto from an opinion of the sufferer, and that he had done no wrong in deed or word.” Dr. Kennicott reads, And he was taken up, [that is, hanged on the cross] with wicked men in his death, and with a rich man was his sepulchre; observing, that since the preceding parts of the prophesy speak so indisputably of the sufferings and death of the Messiah, these words seem evidently to be meant as descriptive of the Messiah’s being put to death in company with wicked men, and making his grave or sepulchre not with rich men, but with one rich man. See his Dissert. vol. 2: p. 372, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 972
THE FATHERS CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INNOCENT JESUS EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED
Isa 53:9-10. He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief.
THE accomplishment of the prophecies is one of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity. The predictions which relate to the great Founder of our religion are so numerous and so minute, that they could not possibly have been dictated by any but Him, to whom all things are naked and open, and who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. The very smallest circumstances of our Lords death, even such as were most unlikely and insignificant, were pointed out with as much accuracy as those which were most important. What could be more unlikely, than that he should be crucified, when crucifixion was not a Jewish but a Roman punishment? and yet that was foretold by David hundreds of years before Rome was built. What could be more unlikely than that, if he were crucified, he should not have his legs broken, when that was the customary way of hastening the end of those who were crucified, and they who were crucified with him were actually so treated? yet it was foretold fifteen hundred years before, that a bone of him should not be broken. What more insignificant, than that the soldiers should part his garment, but cast lots for his vesture? yet that, with many other things equally minute, was circumstantially foretold. So, in the text, his honourable interment after his disgraceful death is predicted: his grave, as the words may be translated, was appointed with the wicked; but with the rich was his tomb. Now, if we consider the treatment which Jesus was to meet with, it was necessary that such events as could not be foreseen by human wisdom, or accomplished by mans device, should be foretold; because such a concurrence of circumstances, all happening exactly according to the predictions concerning him, would fully vindicate his character, and manifest that all which he suffered was according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Notwithstanding he was innocent and spotless in himself, yet he was to be treated as the vilest of malefactors: nor was he to be persecuted and put to death by men only, but to be an object also of the Divine displeasure. Therefore it was foretold by the prophet in the text, that, although [Note: The word because should be translated although. See Bishop Lowths version, which removes all the obscurities from this passage. If this subject were treated separately, and not in a series of Sermons on the chapter, the first and last clauses of the text should he omitted.] he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth, yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief.
From these words we shall take occasion to consider, first, The innocence of Jesus; secondly, The conduct of the Father towards him; and thirdly, The reasons of that conduct.
I.
Let us consider the innocence of Jesus
The declaration of our Lords innocence is here peculiarly strong: it is not merely asserted, That he did no violence, but it is taken for granted as a thing which could not admit of one moments doubt; although he had done no violence. And indeed, well might it be taken for granted; for, if he were not innocent himself, he could not be a propitiation for our sins: if he had in the least deviated from the perfect law of God, he himself had needed an atonement for his own sins, as much as we for ours. Under the ceremonial law, the lamb that was to be offered in sacrifice at the passover was solemnly set apart four days before, in order that it might be examined; and, if it had the least spot or blemish, it was not worthy to be offered. To this St. Peter refers, when he calls our Lord a Lamb without blemish, and without spot: and it should seem that our Lords entrance into Jerusalem just four days before the passover, and the strict examination of him before Pilate and the chief priests, were intended to fulfil that type. In reference to the same, St. John says, He was manifested to take away our sin; and in him was no sin; for if there had been any in him, he could not have removed ours.
The text sets forth his innocence in two particulars; he did no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth. Deceit and violence are the fruits of wisdom and power when abused: and alas! wisdom is but too often employed in devising mischief, as power is in executing it. Our Lord was endued with wisdom; for in him were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge: and he was possessed of power; for all nature, animate and inanimate, was under his control; but he never abused either for the purposes of deceit or violence. On the contrary, he employed his wisdom in confounding his captious adversaries, and in explaining the mysteries of his kingdom to his followers: and his power he exerted in working miracles upon the bodies of men, and in effecting the conversion of their souls. Who can read any of his discourses without acknowledging, as they did of old, that he spake as never man spake? who that hears him commanding the unclean spirits with authority, and rebuking the winds and the sea, must not immediately confess, that no man could do these things except God were with him? Sometimes indeed he answered differently from what we might have expected; as when he told the young man to enter into life by keeping the commandments: but this he did, because he knew that the young mans heart was proud of his great attainments, at the same time that it was glued to his earthly possessions. This therefore was the way, not to deceive, but to undeceive him, by discovering to him the sinfulness of his heart: whereas, if he had told him at once, that the way to enter into life was by believing in him, he would indeed have given a more explicit answer to the question; but he would have left him wholly ignorant of his own corruptions, and would have exposed him thereby to the tenfold danger of making, like Judas, an hypocritical profession. So our Lord may appear to have done violence when he beat the armed men backward to the ground by his word. But this was done in pity to their souls: it was the very way to convince them, that they were about to seize the Lords prophet; and thereby to make them desist from their purpose. If they were Jewish soldiers, as doubtless they were, because they were sent by the chief priests and elders, and Pilate was not yet acquainted with their intentions, they could not but have heard the history of the prophet Elijah, who struck dead two different companies of men, consisting of fifty each, who came to apprehend him. Now our Lord struck them to the ground to bring that to their remembrance: and when they would not desist, he resigned himself into their hands. He healed also the high-priests servant, whose ear Peter had cut off: and, as he had once before rebuked his disciples, when they would have called fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village that had refused him admission, so now he told them, that all who took the sword, should perish with the sword. Indeed, if there had been any deceit in Jesus, Judas would gladly have discovered it, as a justification of his own treachery; and if there had been any violence in him, his numerous and watchful enemies would not have failed to lay it to his charge. But, so far was he from using deceit or violence himself, that he has engaged to deliver his people from all, who, in either of these respects, should attempt to injure them: He shall redeem their souls, says David, from deceit and violence [Note: Psa 72:14.].
It appears then that his innocence in every respect stands unimpeached; he was just such an high-priest as became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. Nor was he more clear in the sight of men, than he was in the sight of God; for he did always those things which pleased his Father: and thrice did his Father, by an audible voice from heaven, declare him to be, his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased.
But, however innocent he was, however free both from violence and deceit, yet he was not dealt with as innocent either by God or man: for, as his own countrymen treated him with the utmost barbarity, so even his heavenly Father acted towards him, as if he had been the greatest of all criminals; as we shall see by considering,
II.
The conduct of his Father towards him
We must acknowledge that there is something inexpressibly awful, and deeply mysterious, in the declaration before us: nevertheless it will be found literally true, that, notwithstanding the complacency and delight which the Father must of necessity have taken in the immaculate Jesus, it pleased the Lord to bruise him.
That his heavenly Father did inflict punishment upon him, even these words indisputably prove; as also do the words which immediately follow; he hath put him to grief. There is also in other parts of Scripture abundant evidence to confirm it: for, all that either men or devils did, was not only by his permission, but by his express commission. The Father spared not his Son, but delivered him up; and though the Jews took him, and by wicked hands crucified and slew him, yet St. Peter says, he was delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. And indeed, how otherwise shall we account for his agony in the garden! If it was produced by devils, still they could have had no power against him, except it had been given them from above. And what shall we say to that bitter lamentation which he uttered upon the cross! The complaint arose, not from any pains of body, but from the desertion and wrath which his soul experienced from his heavenly Father: then the Father bruised him. This expression alludes to the holy incense mentioned in Exodus: The Lord said unto Moses, Take unto thee sweet spices with pure frankincense, and thou shalt beat some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with thee; and it shall be unto you most holy [Note: Chap. 30:34, 36.]. Before these spices could ascend up to God as incense, or be worthy to be laid up in the tabernacle, they were to be beaten very small: and in the same manner was Jesus to be bruised, before the incense of his merits could be accepted, or his own person be received into the tabernacle of the Most High. This was by far the most distressing part of our Saviours sufferings; nor could we account for his behaviour under them, unless we believed, that they were inflicted by his heavenly Father: for many martyrs have endured all that men could inflict, not only with resignation, but with joy and triumph: but here we see no less a person than the Son of God exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, at the very apprehension of his sufferings: we hear him crying for the removal of the bitter cup, and bewailing in the most pathetic manner the intenseness of his agony.
Nor did the Father bruise him only, but, as the text intimates, took pleasure in bruising him: It pleased the Lord to bruise him. The word which is here translated, it pleased, includes in it an idea of complacency, and is strongly expressive of pleasure: the import of it is much the same with that which the Apostle uses, when he says, With such sacrifices God is well pleased: in conformity with which idea, Jehovah is said to smell a sweet savour from those sacrifices which prefigured the crucified Jesus. Indeed, the same idea, though not so expressly asserted, is supported and confirmed by many other passages of Scripture. In the very verse following the text, we are informed, that the Father gave him promises on the express condition that he should endure his wrath for man; that when he should make his soul an offering for sin; he should see a seed, and should prolong his days; that is, that, on condition of his bearing the wrath due to sinners, many should be everlastingly saved through him, and with him. In another place we are told that God sent his Son into the world for this very end, that he might be the propitiation for our sins; that is, that he might bear the punishment due to them: St. Paul also says, that Christ was made sin, that is, a sin-offering, for us: and again, that he was made a curse for us: all of which passages shew that God sent him into the world on purpose to bruise him. And when the time should come for executing upon his Son all that he was ordained to suffer, the prophet represents the Father as feeling a complacency in the very net: Awake, O my sword, against my Shepherd, against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts. We may further observe, that the Father had from the beginning delighted in the sacrifices which were offered, became they were types of that sacrifice, which Christ in due time should offer upon the cross. When Noah came out of the ark, he built an altar, and offered a burnt-offering upon it; and then we are told, The Lord smelled a sweet savour. So, at the very time that our Lord was bruised, the Father was pleased with it; for the Apostle says of Christ, that he gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; plainly implying, that as God was pleased with the offering of beasts by Noah, and with the savour of the incense which was composed of bruised spices, so he was pleased with the offering of his own Son, while he was yet consuming with the fire of divine wrath. The Father has moreover exalted Jesus in consideration of his having endured the sufferings which he had appointed him. The Apostle having set forth Christ as obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, adds, Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name. In the same manner, every blessing which the Father bestows upon mankind is given as the purchase of Christs blood, and as the reward of his obedience unto death. Redemption includes every blessing of the covenant; every evil we are delivered from, and every good which we are ever to possess: and this the Apostle ascribes wholly to the efficacy of Christs blood; We have redemption, says he, through his blood: and another Apostle says, Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ.
Now did the Father give promises to his Son on the express condition of his suffering! Did he send him into the world on purpose that he might suffer? Did he delight in other sacrifices merely as typical of those sufferings? Did he declare, that the offering up of his dear Son was an offering of a sweet-smelling savour? Did he exalt Christ for his sufferings? and does he continually bestow the richest blessings on his very enemies as a reward of those sufferings? Did he do all these things, and shall we not acknowledge that the sufferings of Christ were pleasing to him; or, to use the words of the text, that it pleased the Lord to bruise him?
However, we must not imagine that the mere act of inflicting punishment on his only dear Son could be pleasing to him: No: He delighteth in mercy; and judgment is his strange work: he is averse to punish even his enemies; and much more his own Son. But there were very sufficient reasons why he should be pleased with bruising his own Son; to illustrate which we shall consider,
III.
The reasons of the Divine conduct
If we expect to account for every thing, we shall soon reject the whole of revelation: God never intended that we should; nor indeed is it possible. We know that an ignorant peasant is not able to search out the reasons upon which a profound statesman acts; nor could he even comprehend them, if they were laid before him: and shall we wonder if there be some mysteries in the revelation and in the providence of God which we cannot explore, and which perhaps, if unfolded ever so clearly, would be far above our comprehension? Is not God far more exalted above us, than we can be above our fellow-creatures? We must therefore proceed with great humility and reverence, when we presume to investigate the reasons by which the all-wise God is actuated, especially in subjects so deeply mysterious as this which we are now contemplating. However, we will attempt to assign some reasons for his conduct.
He was pleased when he bruised his Son, first, because the bruising of him was pleasing to his Son. As the Father did not take pleasure in inflicting punishment, so neither did the Son in enduring it, for itself; the punishment, considered separately from its consequences, was equally grievous to him who inflicted, and to him who bore it. But Jesus thirsted for the salvation of men; he knew that it could not be accomplished consistently with the rights of justice and truth, unless he should become their surety: he was well aware of all that he must undergo, if he should stand in the place of sinners; yet he cheerfully undertook it; Then said he, Lo, I come; I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. And when the time for his sufferings was fully arrived, he drew not back, but said, Thy will be done; and for the joy that was set before him of redeeming so many millions from destruction, he willingly endured the cross, and despised the shame. He reproved Peter as an agent of Satan himself, when he attempted to dissuade him from his purpose: Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me. And, when the time drew nigh, he so longed for it, that he was quite straitened till it could be accomplished. And therefore, as the Father knew how pleasing it would be to his Son to have the iniquities of mankind laid upon him, he himself found pleasure in laying them upon him: it gave him pleasure to put the finishing hand to that which had been agreed upon between them, and thus to make him the author of eternal salvation to all his people.
Another reason may be this: God was pleased with bruising his own Son, because it would prove so beneficial to man. We are not to imagine that the Son loved us more than the Father; for the Father expressed as much love in giving his Son, as the Son did in giving himself; the Father testified his compassion as much in laying our iniquities on his Son, as the Son did in bearing them in his own body on the tree. The whole work of salvation is the fruit of the Fathers love: he pitied us when we fell; he in his own eternal counsels provided a Saviour for us before we did fall, yea, before we were brought into existence. He saw how inconceivably miserable we must have been to all eternity if left to ourselves: he therefore covenanted with his Son, and agreed to pardon us, to give us peace, to adopt us for his children, to restore us to our forfeited inheritance, and to exalt us to glory, if he would, by substituting himself in our place, remove the obstacles which prevented the exercise of his mercy towards us. When therefore these counsels were nearly executed, the Father was pleased with putting the bitter cup into the hands of his Son, because it would henceforth be taken out of the hands of all those who should believe in Christ; none should perish but through their obstinate rejection of this Saviour; and all, who would embrace him, would be exalted to far higher glory than they would ever have obtained, if they had never fallen.
A third reason we may assign is this; the Father was pleased with bruising his own Son, because it would put great honour upon the divine law. We cannot but suppose that God must be concerned for the honour of his own law, because it is a perfect transcript of his own mind and will. Now this law had been violated and dishonoured by the transgression of man: if the sanctions of the law were not enforced, the law itself would be set aside; or, if the sanctions were enforced, still the punishment of the offender would never repair the dishonour done to the law, and the contempt he had poured upon it. But by the sufferings of Jesus the law was magnified and made honourable. The majesty of the law was manifested in having the Son of God himself subject to it: the authority of the law was established in that its penalties were inflicted even on the Son of God, when he stood in the place of sinners; and therefore no sinner could hope thenceforth to transgress it with impunity: the purity of the law was declared, in that nothing less than the blood of the Son of God could expiate any transgression against it: the justice of the law was held forth, in that it did not relax one jot or tittle of its demands even in favour of the Son of God. Now when the divine law was to be so magnified by the voluntary sufferings of the Son of God, we cannot wonder that the lawgiver should be pleased; especially as the majesty of the law was more fully manifested, its authority more firmly established, its purity more conspicuously declared, and its justice more awfully displayed by means of the sufferings of the Son of God, than it could have been by the everlasting obedience of angels, or the everlasting misery of the whole human race.
The last reason we shall assign is this; the Father was pleased with bruising his own Son, because he himself was thereby transcendently glorified. God cannot but delight in the manifestation of his own glory: nor did he ever manifest it in such bright colours, as while he was bruising his own Son. When Judas went out to betray his Master, Now, said Jesus, the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. In that awful hour, the divine perfections, which seemed, as it were, to be at variance, were made to harmonize, and to shine with united splendour. We are at a loss what to admire most; the inflexibility of his justice which required such a sacrifice, or the heights of his love which gave it; his inviolable truth in punishing sin, or the extent of his mercy in pardoning the sinner; the holiness of his nature in manifesting such indignation against iniquity, or his wisdom and goodness in providing such a way of deliverance from it. Every attribute of the Deity is incomparably more glorified than it could have been in any other way; mercy shines in the way of satisfying the demands of justice, and justice in the way of exercising mercy. This view of the Deity was not more new to man, than it was to the angels in heaven; and when a ray of this glory shone forth at the incarnation of our Lord, the angels burst forth in joyful acclamations, and sang, Glory to God in the highest. Since then the bruising of our Lord tended so much to the manifestation of the divine glory, no doubt the Father was well pleased with it.
We might assign more reasons, if it were necessary; but we trust that these are sufficient for the justifying of the Fathers conduct towards his Son. If, as has been shewn, the Father saw that the bruising of his Son would be pleasing to his Son, beneficial to man, honourable to his law, and glorious to himself, it can surely be no imputation on the Fathers character to say, It pleased him to bruise his Son.
Amidst the many reflections which naturally arise from this subject, such as the greatness of the Fathers love (in that he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all), and the danger of unbelief (in that, if we yield to it, the Fathers wrath will infallibly fall on us [Note: Mar 16:16.]), and others too numerous to mention, we shall confine our attention to one; namely,
How great must be the evil of sin!
We have seen the immaculate Jesus bruised under the weight of his Fathers wrath, and his Father pleased with bruising him; and from whence did this arise? From the evil, the dreadful evil, of sin. Sin had introduced confusion into the divine government; sin had set the divine perfections at variance: sin had dishonoured the divine law: sin brought the Son of God from heaven: sin put him to death: and, had he not died, sin would have sunk us all into the lowest abyss of misery for ever. Sin reduced God himself to the necessity of delighting either to punish us, or to bruise his own Son. What must sin be, when such are the effects arising from it! And yet how lightly do we think of it! how unconcerned are we about it! But did our Surety think lightly of it, when he cried, My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me? Did the Father think lightly of it, when he was bruising his own Son? and do they think lightly of it who are now receiving the wages of it in hell? If nothing less than the blood of Christ could expiate it, is it a small evil? If it crushed even HIM with its weight, though he had none of his own to answer for, shall we find it easy to bear, who are so laden with iniquities? Let us but look at sin one moment as it appears in the death of Jesus; let us recollect that he was God equal with the Father; and that yet he almost sunk under the load; let us recollect this, I say, and we shall surely begin to tremble, lest we should lie under the weight of it for ever. We never shall see sin aright, till we view it in the tears and groans, the blood and agonies, of the Son of God: for there at once we behold both the evil, and the remedy of sin; there at once we learn to fear and hope, to weep and rejoice. If we look at sin in any other view, we may dread its consequences: but we shall never hate its malignity. But if we view it in the dying Jesus, we shall be delivered from the fear of consequences, because the guilt of it was expiated by him; and we shall begin to lothe it as a hateful and accursed evil. This is the only source of ingenuous, evangelical repentance; nor till we look on Him whom we have pierced, shall we ever mourn aright for sin, or be in bitterness for it, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. Let us then look at sin in this light, and we shall soon be like-minded with the Father; we shall be pleased with the sufferings of Jesus; they will be our hope, our plea, our joy, our boast; and we shall exultingly say with the Apostle, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
Ver. 9. And he made his grave with the wicked, ] i.e., He should have been buried among malefactors had not rich Joseph begged his body. Or, His dead body was at the disposal of wicked ones, and of rich men or rulers, the Jews and Pilate, at his death.
And with the rich.
Because he had done no violence.
“ Nec te tun plurima Pentheu
Labentem texit pietas. ”
He made, &c. = one [or they] appointed, or assigned [His grave]; or, it [His grave] was appointed.
made. Hebrew Nathan (to give) is rendered “appoint” in Exo 30:16. Num 35:6. Jos 20:7. 2Ki 8:6, &c. Even where it is rendered “to make”, it has the force of “appoint” (Gen 9:12. Num 14:4, &c.)
grave. Hebrew. keber.
the wicked = the criminals (plural) These have a separate part assigned in all Jewish cemeteries.
the rich = a rich [man] (singular) Compare Mat 27:59, Mat 27:60. Mar 15:43, Mar 15:46. Luk 23:53, Joh 19:40-42.
in His death = when He was dead. Compare Mar 15:42-47. Joh 19:38, Joh 19:39.
He had done, &c. Quoted in 1Pe 2:22.
made: Mat 27:57-60, Mar 15:43-46, Luk 23:50-53, Joh 19:38-42, 1Co 15:4
death: Heb. deaths
deceit: 2Co 5:21, Heb 4:15, Heb 7:26, 1Pe 2:22, 1Jo 3:5
Reciprocal: Mat 27:50 – yielded Mat 27:60 – in his Mar 15:14 – Why Mar 15:46 – and laid Luk 23:53 – General Joh 19:42 – laid Heb 9:14 – without Rev 14:5 – in
Isa 53:9. And he made his grave with the wicked And although he did not die for his own sins, but only for those of mankind, yet he was willing to die like a malefactor, or like a sinner, as all other men are, and to be put into a grave as they use to be; which was a further degree of his humiliation. He saith, he made his grave, because this was Christs own act, and he willingly yielded up himself to death and burial. And that which follows, with the wicked, does not denote the sameness of place, as if he should be buried in the same grave with other malefactors, but the sameness of condition. But the words may be rendered, A grave was appointed for him with the wicked; but he was with the rich at his death. Or, as Bishop Lowth reads it, His grave was appointed with the wicked; but with the rich man was his tomb. See his notes. As our Lord was crucified between two thieves, it was doubtless intended he should be buried with them. Thus his grave was appointed with the wicked; but Joseph of Arimathea came and asked for his body, and Pilate, convinced that he had committed no crime, readily granted Josephs request. Thus he was with the rich at his death, that is, till his resurrection: and this took place contrary to the intention of his enemies, because he had done no violence, &c., for otherwise Joseph would scarcely have requested Pilate, and probably Pilate would not have consented, to deliver up the body of a crucified malefactor. Scott. But this latter clause may be connected with the following verse, and rendered, Although he had done no violence, &c., yet it pleased the Lord, &c. In this light it is considered by Bishop Lowth and many others.
53:9 {n} And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
(n) God the Father delivered him into the hands of the wicked, and to the powers of the world to do with him what they would.
The final insult to the Servant would be that people would plan to bury Him among the wicked, implying His own wickedness. Likewise, burial among the rich-instead of among the humble-would cast doubt on His righteousness, since the rich were often oppressors of the poor (cf. Psa 49:5-6; Psa 52:7; Pro 18:23; Pro 28:6; Pro 28:20; Jer 17:11; Mic 6:12). Yet, in another sense, since Jesus’ corpse received honorable treatment after His death, this suggested that He was unworthy of such an ignominious martyrdom. Isaiah seems to have meant that somehow wicked people and a rich man would be involved in the Servant’s burial (cf. Mat 27:57-60). This is somewhat paradoxical.
". . . without the commentary supplied by the fulfilment [sic], it would be impossible to understand Isa 53:9 a at all." [Note: Delitzsch, 2:327.]
"Like the other enigmas of this Song, this too is written so that when the turn of events provides the explanation we shall know for certain that we stand in the presence of the Servant of the Lord." [Note: Motyer, p. 436.]
The Servant would not defend Himself (Isa 53:7), but neither would He be guilty of anything worthy of death (cf. 1Pe 2:22). Lack of "violence" and "deceit" represents total guiltlessness. The Servant would always speak the truth. Truly, the Servant would have to be more than a sinful human (cf. Joh 8:29; 2Co 5:21).
Those who suffer as God’s servants should do so willingly, knowing that they are fulfilling their calling.
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)