Johann
Active Member
Isaiah 53
On the contrary, the impression produced by His appearance was rather repulsive, and, to those who measured the great and noble by a merely worldly standard, contemptible. “He was despised and forsaken by men; a man of griefs, and well acquainted with disease; and like one from whom men hide their face: despised, and we esteemed Him not.” All these different features are predicates of the erat that is latent in non species ei neque decor and non adspectus. Nibhzeh is introduced again palindromically at the close in Isaiah's peculiar style; consequently Martini's conjecture לֹא וגו ֹ נִבְזֵהוּ is to be rejected. This nibhzeh (cf., bâzōh, Isa 49:7) is the keynote of the description which looks back in this plaintive tone.
The predicate chădal 'ı̄shı̄m is misunderstood by nearly all the commentators, inasmuch as they take איִשִׁים as synonymous with בני־אדם, whereas it is rather used in the sense of בני־אישׁ (lords), as distinguished from benē 'âdâm, or people generally (see Isa 2:9, Isa 2:11, Isa 2:17). The only other passages in which it occurs are Pro 8:4 and Psa 141:4; and in both instances it signifies persons of rank. Hence Cocceius explains it thus: “wanting in men, i.e., having no respectable men with Him, to support Him with their authority.” It might also be understood as meaning the ending one among men, i.e., the one who takes the last place (S. ἐλάχιστος, Jer. novissimus); but in this case He Himself would be described as אִישׁ, whereas it is absolutely affirmed that He had not the appearance or distinction of such an one. But the rendering deficiens (wanting) is quite correct; compare Job 19:14, “my kinsfolk have failed” (defecerunt, châdelū, cognati mei). The Arabic chadhalahu or chadhala ‛anhu (also points to the true meaning; and from this we have the derivatives châdhil, refusing assistance, leaving without help; and machdhûl, helpless, forsaken (see Lane's Arabic Lexicon). In Hebrew, châdal has not only the transitive meaning to discontinue or leave off a thing, but the intransitive, to case or be in want, so that chădal 'ı̄shı̄m may mean one in want of men of rank, i.e., finding no sympathy from such men. The chief men of His nation who towered above the multitude, the great men of this world, withdrew their hands from Him, drew back from Him: He had none of the men of any distinction at His side.
Moreover, He was מַכְאֹבוֹת אִישׁ, a man of sorrow of heart in all its forms, i.e., a man whose chief distinction was, that His life was one of constant painful endurance. And He was also חֹלִי יְדוַּע, that is to say, not one known through His sickness (according to Deu 1:13, Deu 1:15), which is hardly sufficient to express the genitive construction; nor an acquaintance of disease (S. γνωστὸς νόσῳ, familiaris morbo), which would be expressed by מְיֻדַּע or מוֹדַע; but scitus morbi, i.e., one who was placed in a state to make the acquaintance of disease. The deponent passive יָרוּעַ, acquainted (like bâtuăch, confisus; zâkbūr, mindful; peritus, pervaded, experienced), is supported by מַדּוּעַ = מַה־יָּרוּעַ; Gr. τί μαθών.
The meaning is not, that He had by nature a sickly body, falling out of one disease into another; but that the wrath instigated by sin, and the zeal of self-sacrifice (Psa 69:10), burnt like the fire of a fever in His soul and body, so that even if He had not died a violent death, He would have succumbed to the force of the powers of destruction that were innate in humanity in consequence of sin, and of His own self-consuming conflict with them.
Moreover, He was kemastēr pânı̄m mimmennū. This cannot mean, “like one hiding his face from us,” as Hengstenberg supposes (with an allusion to Lev 13:45); or, what is comparatively better, “like one causing the hiding of the face from him:” for although the feminine of the participle is written מַסְתֶּרֶת, and in the plural מַסְתְּרִים for מַסתְּיִרִים is quite possible, we never meet with mastēr for mastı̄r, like hastēr for hastı̄r in the infinitive (Isa 29:15, cf., Deu 26:12). Hence mastēr must be a noun (of the form marbēts, marbēq, mashchēth); and the words mean either “like the hiding of the face on our part,” or like one who met with this from us, or (what is more natural) like the hiding of the face before his presence (according to Isa 8:17; Isa 50:6; Isa 54:8; Isa 59:2, and many other passages), i.e., like one whose repulsive face it is impossible to endure, so that men turn away their face or cover it with their dress (compare Isa 50:6 with Job 30:10). And lastly, all the predicates are summed up in the expressive word nibhzeh: He was despised, and we did not think Him dear and worthy, but rather “esteemed Him not,” or rather did not estimate Him at all, or as Luther expresses it, “estimated Him at nothing” (châshabh, to reckon, value, esteem, as in Isa 13:17; Isa 33:8; Mal 3:16).
The second turn closes here. The preaching concerning His calling and His future was not believed; but the Man of sorrows was greatly despised among us.
Those who formerly mistook and despised the Servant of Jehovah on account of His miserable condition, now confess that His sufferings were altogether of a different character from what they had supposed.
“Verily He hath borne our diseases and our pains: He hath laden them upon Himself; but we regarded Him as one stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” It might appear doubtful whether אָכֵן (the fuller form of אַךְ) is affirmative here, as in Isa 40:7; Isa 45:15, or adversative, as in Isa 49:4. The latter meaning grows out of the former, inasmuch as it is the opposite which is strongly affirmed. We have rendered it affirmatively (Jer. vere), not adversatively (verum, ut vero), because Isa 53:4 itself consists of two antithetical halves - a relation which is expressed in the independent pronouns הוּא and אֲנַחְנוּ, that answer to one another. The penitents contrast themselves and their false notion with Him and His real achievement. In Matthew (Mat 8:17) the words are rendered freely and faithfully thus: αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν.
Even the fact that the relief which Jesus afforded to all kinds of bodily diseases is regarded as a fulfilment of what is here affirmed of the Servant of Jehovah, is an exegetical index worth noticing. In Isa 53:4 it is not really sin that is spoken of, but the evil which is consequent upon human sin, although not always the direct consequence of the sins of individuals (Joh 9:3).
But in the fact that He was concerned to relieve this evil in all its forms, whenever it came in His way in the exercise of His calling, the relief implied as a consequence in Isa 53:4 was brought distinctly into view, though not the bearing and lading that are primarily noticed here. Matthew has very aptly rendered נָשָׂא by ἔλαβε, and סָבַל by ἐβάστασε. For whilst סבַל denotes the toilsome bearing of a burden that has been taken up, נָשָׂא combines in itself the ideas of tollere and ferre.
When construed with the accusative of the sin, it signifies to take the debt of sin upon one's self, and carry it as one's own, i.e., to look at it and feel it as one's own (e.g., Lev 5:1, Lev 5:17), or more frequently to bear the punishment occasioned by sin, i.e., to make expiation for it (Lev 17:16; Lev 20:19-20; Lev 24:15), and in any case in which the person bearing it is not himself the guilty person, to bear sin in a mediatorial capacity, for the purpose of making expiation for it (Lev 10:17). The lxx render this נשׂא both in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel λαβεῖν ἁμαρτίαν, once ἀναφέρειν; and it is evident that both of these are to be understood in the sense of an expiatory bearing, and not merely of taking away, as has been recently maintained in opposition to the satisfactio vicaria, as we may see clearly enough from Eze 4:4-8, where the עָוֹן שֵׂאת is represented by the prophet in a symbolical action.
But in the case before us, where it is not the sins, but “our diseases” (חָלָיֵנוּ is a defective plural, as the singular would be written חָלְיֵנוּ) and “our pains” that are the object, this mediatorial sense remains essentially the same.
The meaning is not merely that the Servant of God entered into the fellowship of our sufferings, but that He took upon Himself the sufferings which we had to bear and deserved to bear, and therefore not only took them away (as Mat 8:17 might make it appear), but bore them in His own person, that He might deliver us from them.
But when one person takes upon himself suffering which another would have had to bear, and therefore not only endures it with him, but in his stead, this is called substitution or representation - an idea which, however unintelligible to the understanding, belongs to the actual substance of the common consciousness of man, and the realities of the divine government of the world as brought within the range of our experience, and one which has continued even down to the present time to have much greater vigour in the Jewish nation, where it has found it true expression in sacrifice and the kindred institutions, than in any other, at least so far as its nationality has not been entirely annulled.
(Note: See my Jesus and Hillel, pp. 26, 27.)
Here again it is Israel, which, having been at length better instructed, and now bearing witness against itself, laments its former blindness to the mediatorially vicarious character of the deep agonies, both of soul and body, that were endured by the great Sufferer. They looked upon them as the punishment of His own sins, and indeed - inasmuch as, like the friends of Job, they measured the sin of the Sufferer by the sufferings that He endured - of peculiarly great sins. They saw in Him נָגוּעַ, “one stricken,” i.e., afflicted with a hateful, shocking disease (Gen 12:17; 1Sa 6:9) - such, for example, as leprosy, which was called נֶגַע κατ ̓ ἐξ (2Ki 15:5, A. ἀφήμενον, S. ἐν ἁφῆ ὄντα = leprosum, Th. μεμαστιγωμένον, cf., μάστιγες, Mar 3:10, scourges, i.e., bad attacks); also אֱלֹהִים מֻכֵּה, “one smitten of God” (from nâkhâh, root נך, נג; see Comm. on Job, at Job 30:8), and מְעֻנֶּה bowed down (by God), i.e., afflicted with sufferings. The name Jehovah would have been out of place here, where the evident intention is to point to the all-determining divine power generally, whose vengeance appeared to have fallen upon this particular sufferer. The construction mukkēh 'Elōhı̄m signifies, like the Arabic muqâtal rabbuh, one who has been defeated in conflict with God his Lord (see Comm. on Job, at Job 15:28); and 'Elōhı̄m has the syntactic position between the two adjectives, which it necessarily must have in order to be logically connected with them both.
In Isa 53:5, וְהוּא, as contrasted with וַאֲנַחְנוּ, continues the true state of the case as contrasted with their false judgment. “Whereas He was pierced for our sins, bruised for our iniquities: the punishment was laid upon Him for our peace; and through His stripes we were healed.”
The question is, whether Isa 53:5 describes what He was during His life, or what He was in His death. The words decide in favour of the latter. For although châlâl is applied to a person mortally wounded but not yet dead (Jer 51:52; Psa 69:27), and châlal to a heart wounded to death (Psa 109:22); the pure passives used here, which denote a calamity inflicted by violence from without, more especially mechōlâl, which is not the participle polal of chı̄l (made to twist one's self with pain), but the participle poal of châl (pierced, transfossus, the passive of mechōlēl, Isa 51:9), and the substantive clauses, which express a fact that has become complete in all its circumstances, can hardly be understood in any other way than as denoting, that “the servant of God” floated before the mind of the speaker in all the sufferings of death, just as was the case with Zechariah in Zec 12:10.
There were no stronger expressions to be found in the language, to denote a violent and painful death. As min, with the passive, does not answer to the Greek ὑπό, but to ἀπό, the meaning is not that it was our sins and iniquities that had pierced Him through like swords, and crushed Him like heavy burdens, but that He was pierced and crushed on account of our sins and iniquities. It was not His own sins and iniquities, but ours, which He had taken upon Himself, that He might make atonement for them in our stead, that were the cause of His having to suffer so cruel and painful a death.
The ultimate cause is not mentioned; but עָלָיו שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ מוּסַר which follows points to it. His suffering was a mūsâr, which is an indirect affirmation that it was God who had inflicted it upon Him, for who else could the yōsēr (meyassēr) be?
We have rendered mūsâr “punishment;” and there was no other word in the language for this idea; for though נָקָם and פְּקֻדָּה (to which Hofmann refers) have indeed the idea of punishment associated with them, the former signifies ἐκδίκησις, the latter ἐπίσκεψις, whereas mūsâr not only denotes παιδεία, as the chastisement of love (Pro 3:11), but also as the infliction of punishment (= τιμωρία κόλασις, Pro 7:22; Jer 30:14), just as David, when he prayed that God might not punish him in His anger and hot displeasure (Psa 6:2), could not find a more suitable expression for punishment, regarded as the execution of judgment, than יִסַּר (הוֹכִיחַ).
The word itself, which follows the form of mūsâd (Isa 28:16), signifies primarily being chastised (from yâsar = vâsar, constringere, coercere), and included from the very outset the idea of practical chastisement, which then passed over into that of admonition in words, of warning by example, and of chastity as a moral quality. In the case before us, in which the reference is to a sufferer, and to a mūsâr resting upon him, this can only mean actual chastisement.
If the expression had been עָלָיו מוּסָרֵנוּ, it would merely mean that God had caused Him, who had taken upon Himself our sins and iniquities and thus made Himself representatively or vicariously guilty, to endure the chastisement which those sins deserved. but it is שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ מוּסַר. The connection of the words is the same as that of חַיִּים תּוֹכַחַת in Pro 15:31.
As the latter signifies “reproof leading to life,” so the former signifies “the chastisement which leads to our peace.” It is true that the suffix belongs to the one idea, that that has grown up through this combination of the words, like berı̄th shelōmı̄, “my peace-covenant” (Isa 54:10); but what else could our “peace-chastisement” be, than the chastisement that brings us peace, or puts us into a state of salvation?
This is the idea involved in Stier's rendering, “restoring chastisement,” and Hofmann's, “the chastisement wholesome for us.” The difference in the exposition simply lies in the view entertained of the mūsâr, in which neither of these commentators will allow that there is any idea of a visitation of justice here. But according to our interpretation, the genitive שׁלוֹמנו, which defines the mūsâr so far as its object and results are concerned, clearly shows that this manifestation of the justice of God, this satisfaction procured by His holiness, had His love for its foundation and end. It was our peace, or, what is more in accordance with the full idea of the word, our general well-being, our blessedness, which these sufferings arrived at and secured (the synonyms of shâlōm are tōbh and yeshū‛âh, Isa 52:7). In what follows, “and by His stripes (chăbhūrâh = chabbūrâh, Isa 1:6) we have been healed,” shâlōm is defined as a condition of salvation brought about by healing. “Venustissimum ὀξύμωρον,” exclaims Vitringa here. He means the same as Jerome when he says, suo vulnere vulnera nostra curavit. The stripes and weals that were inflicted upon Him have made us sound and well (the lxx keeps the collective singular, and renders it very aptly τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ; cf., 1Pe 2:24). We were sick unto death because of our sins; but He, the sinless one, took upon Himself a suffering unto death, which was, as it were, the concentration and essence of the woes that we had deserved; and this voluntary endurance, this submission to the justice of the Holy One, in accordance with the counsels of divine love, became the source of our healing.
K&D
On the contrary, the impression produced by His appearance was rather repulsive, and, to those who measured the great and noble by a merely worldly standard, contemptible. “He was despised and forsaken by men; a man of griefs, and well acquainted with disease; and like one from whom men hide their face: despised, and we esteemed Him not.” All these different features are predicates of the erat that is latent in non species ei neque decor and non adspectus. Nibhzeh is introduced again palindromically at the close in Isaiah's peculiar style; consequently Martini's conjecture לֹא וגו ֹ נִבְזֵהוּ is to be rejected. This nibhzeh (cf., bâzōh, Isa 49:7) is the keynote of the description which looks back in this plaintive tone.
The predicate chădal 'ı̄shı̄m is misunderstood by nearly all the commentators, inasmuch as they take איִשִׁים as synonymous with בני־אדם, whereas it is rather used in the sense of בני־אישׁ (lords), as distinguished from benē 'âdâm, or people generally (see Isa 2:9, Isa 2:11, Isa 2:17). The only other passages in which it occurs are Pro 8:4 and Psa 141:4; and in both instances it signifies persons of rank. Hence Cocceius explains it thus: “wanting in men, i.e., having no respectable men with Him, to support Him with their authority.” It might also be understood as meaning the ending one among men, i.e., the one who takes the last place (S. ἐλάχιστος, Jer. novissimus); but in this case He Himself would be described as אִישׁ, whereas it is absolutely affirmed that He had not the appearance or distinction of such an one. But the rendering deficiens (wanting) is quite correct; compare Job 19:14, “my kinsfolk have failed” (defecerunt, châdelū, cognati mei). The Arabic chadhalahu or chadhala ‛anhu (also points to the true meaning; and from this we have the derivatives châdhil, refusing assistance, leaving without help; and machdhûl, helpless, forsaken (see Lane's Arabic Lexicon). In Hebrew, châdal has not only the transitive meaning to discontinue or leave off a thing, but the intransitive, to case or be in want, so that chădal 'ı̄shı̄m may mean one in want of men of rank, i.e., finding no sympathy from such men. The chief men of His nation who towered above the multitude, the great men of this world, withdrew their hands from Him, drew back from Him: He had none of the men of any distinction at His side.
Moreover, He was מַכְאֹבוֹת אִישׁ, a man of sorrow of heart in all its forms, i.e., a man whose chief distinction was, that His life was one of constant painful endurance. And He was also חֹלִי יְדוַּע, that is to say, not one known through His sickness (according to Deu 1:13, Deu 1:15), which is hardly sufficient to express the genitive construction; nor an acquaintance of disease (S. γνωστὸς νόσῳ, familiaris morbo), which would be expressed by מְיֻדַּע or מוֹדַע; but scitus morbi, i.e., one who was placed in a state to make the acquaintance of disease. The deponent passive יָרוּעַ, acquainted (like bâtuăch, confisus; zâkbūr, mindful; peritus, pervaded, experienced), is supported by מַדּוּעַ = מַה־יָּרוּעַ; Gr. τί μαθών.
The meaning is not, that He had by nature a sickly body, falling out of one disease into another; but that the wrath instigated by sin, and the zeal of self-sacrifice (Psa 69:10), burnt like the fire of a fever in His soul and body, so that even if He had not died a violent death, He would have succumbed to the force of the powers of destruction that were innate in humanity in consequence of sin, and of His own self-consuming conflict with them.
Moreover, He was kemastēr pânı̄m mimmennū. This cannot mean, “like one hiding his face from us,” as Hengstenberg supposes (with an allusion to Lev 13:45); or, what is comparatively better, “like one causing the hiding of the face from him:” for although the feminine of the participle is written מַסְתֶּרֶת, and in the plural מַסְתְּרִים for מַסתְּיִרִים is quite possible, we never meet with mastēr for mastı̄r, like hastēr for hastı̄r in the infinitive (Isa 29:15, cf., Deu 26:12). Hence mastēr must be a noun (of the form marbēts, marbēq, mashchēth); and the words mean either “like the hiding of the face on our part,” or like one who met with this from us, or (what is more natural) like the hiding of the face before his presence (according to Isa 8:17; Isa 50:6; Isa 54:8; Isa 59:2, and many other passages), i.e., like one whose repulsive face it is impossible to endure, so that men turn away their face or cover it with their dress (compare Isa 50:6 with Job 30:10). And lastly, all the predicates are summed up in the expressive word nibhzeh: He was despised, and we did not think Him dear and worthy, but rather “esteemed Him not,” or rather did not estimate Him at all, or as Luther expresses it, “estimated Him at nothing” (châshabh, to reckon, value, esteem, as in Isa 13:17; Isa 33:8; Mal 3:16).
The second turn closes here. The preaching concerning His calling and His future was not believed; but the Man of sorrows was greatly despised among us.
Those who formerly mistook and despised the Servant of Jehovah on account of His miserable condition, now confess that His sufferings were altogether of a different character from what they had supposed.
“Verily He hath borne our diseases and our pains: He hath laden them upon Himself; but we regarded Him as one stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” It might appear doubtful whether אָכֵן (the fuller form of אַךְ) is affirmative here, as in Isa 40:7; Isa 45:15, or adversative, as in Isa 49:4. The latter meaning grows out of the former, inasmuch as it is the opposite which is strongly affirmed. We have rendered it affirmatively (Jer. vere), not adversatively (verum, ut vero), because Isa 53:4 itself consists of two antithetical halves - a relation which is expressed in the independent pronouns הוּא and אֲנַחְנוּ, that answer to one another. The penitents contrast themselves and their false notion with Him and His real achievement. In Matthew (Mat 8:17) the words are rendered freely and faithfully thus: αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν.
Even the fact that the relief which Jesus afforded to all kinds of bodily diseases is regarded as a fulfilment of what is here affirmed of the Servant of Jehovah, is an exegetical index worth noticing. In Isa 53:4 it is not really sin that is spoken of, but the evil which is consequent upon human sin, although not always the direct consequence of the sins of individuals (Joh 9:3).
But in the fact that He was concerned to relieve this evil in all its forms, whenever it came in His way in the exercise of His calling, the relief implied as a consequence in Isa 53:4 was brought distinctly into view, though not the bearing and lading that are primarily noticed here. Matthew has very aptly rendered נָשָׂא by ἔλαβε, and סָבַל by ἐβάστασε. For whilst סבַל denotes the toilsome bearing of a burden that has been taken up, נָשָׂא combines in itself the ideas of tollere and ferre.
When construed with the accusative of the sin, it signifies to take the debt of sin upon one's self, and carry it as one's own, i.e., to look at it and feel it as one's own (e.g., Lev 5:1, Lev 5:17), or more frequently to bear the punishment occasioned by sin, i.e., to make expiation for it (Lev 17:16; Lev 20:19-20; Lev 24:15), and in any case in which the person bearing it is not himself the guilty person, to bear sin in a mediatorial capacity, for the purpose of making expiation for it (Lev 10:17). The lxx render this נשׂא both in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel λαβεῖν ἁμαρτίαν, once ἀναφέρειν; and it is evident that both of these are to be understood in the sense of an expiatory bearing, and not merely of taking away, as has been recently maintained in opposition to the satisfactio vicaria, as we may see clearly enough from Eze 4:4-8, where the עָוֹן שֵׂאת is represented by the prophet in a symbolical action.
But in the case before us, where it is not the sins, but “our diseases” (חָלָיֵנוּ is a defective plural, as the singular would be written חָלְיֵנוּ) and “our pains” that are the object, this mediatorial sense remains essentially the same.
The meaning is not merely that the Servant of God entered into the fellowship of our sufferings, but that He took upon Himself the sufferings which we had to bear and deserved to bear, and therefore not only took them away (as Mat 8:17 might make it appear), but bore them in His own person, that He might deliver us from them.
But when one person takes upon himself suffering which another would have had to bear, and therefore not only endures it with him, but in his stead, this is called substitution or representation - an idea which, however unintelligible to the understanding, belongs to the actual substance of the common consciousness of man, and the realities of the divine government of the world as brought within the range of our experience, and one which has continued even down to the present time to have much greater vigour in the Jewish nation, where it has found it true expression in sacrifice and the kindred institutions, than in any other, at least so far as its nationality has not been entirely annulled.
(Note: See my Jesus and Hillel, pp. 26, 27.)
Here again it is Israel, which, having been at length better instructed, and now bearing witness against itself, laments its former blindness to the mediatorially vicarious character of the deep agonies, both of soul and body, that were endured by the great Sufferer. They looked upon them as the punishment of His own sins, and indeed - inasmuch as, like the friends of Job, they measured the sin of the Sufferer by the sufferings that He endured - of peculiarly great sins. They saw in Him נָגוּעַ, “one stricken,” i.e., afflicted with a hateful, shocking disease (Gen 12:17; 1Sa 6:9) - such, for example, as leprosy, which was called נֶגַע κατ ̓ ἐξ (2Ki 15:5, A. ἀφήμενον, S. ἐν ἁφῆ ὄντα = leprosum, Th. μεμαστιγωμένον, cf., μάστιγες, Mar 3:10, scourges, i.e., bad attacks); also אֱלֹהִים מֻכֵּה, “one smitten of God” (from nâkhâh, root נך, נג; see Comm. on Job, at Job 30:8), and מְעֻנֶּה bowed down (by God), i.e., afflicted with sufferings. The name Jehovah would have been out of place here, where the evident intention is to point to the all-determining divine power generally, whose vengeance appeared to have fallen upon this particular sufferer. The construction mukkēh 'Elōhı̄m signifies, like the Arabic muqâtal rabbuh, one who has been defeated in conflict with God his Lord (see Comm. on Job, at Job 15:28); and 'Elōhı̄m has the syntactic position between the two adjectives, which it necessarily must have in order to be logically connected with them both.
In Isa 53:5, וְהוּא, as contrasted with וַאֲנַחְנוּ, continues the true state of the case as contrasted with their false judgment. “Whereas He was pierced for our sins, bruised for our iniquities: the punishment was laid upon Him for our peace; and through His stripes we were healed.”
The question is, whether Isa 53:5 describes what He was during His life, or what He was in His death. The words decide in favour of the latter. For although châlâl is applied to a person mortally wounded but not yet dead (Jer 51:52; Psa 69:27), and châlal to a heart wounded to death (Psa 109:22); the pure passives used here, which denote a calamity inflicted by violence from without, more especially mechōlâl, which is not the participle polal of chı̄l (made to twist one's self with pain), but the participle poal of châl (pierced, transfossus, the passive of mechōlēl, Isa 51:9), and the substantive clauses, which express a fact that has become complete in all its circumstances, can hardly be understood in any other way than as denoting, that “the servant of God” floated before the mind of the speaker in all the sufferings of death, just as was the case with Zechariah in Zec 12:10.
There were no stronger expressions to be found in the language, to denote a violent and painful death. As min, with the passive, does not answer to the Greek ὑπό, but to ἀπό, the meaning is not that it was our sins and iniquities that had pierced Him through like swords, and crushed Him like heavy burdens, but that He was pierced and crushed on account of our sins and iniquities. It was not His own sins and iniquities, but ours, which He had taken upon Himself, that He might make atonement for them in our stead, that were the cause of His having to suffer so cruel and painful a death.
The ultimate cause is not mentioned; but עָלָיו שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ מוּסַר which follows points to it. His suffering was a mūsâr, which is an indirect affirmation that it was God who had inflicted it upon Him, for who else could the yōsēr (meyassēr) be?
We have rendered mūsâr “punishment;” and there was no other word in the language for this idea; for though נָקָם and פְּקֻדָּה (to which Hofmann refers) have indeed the idea of punishment associated with them, the former signifies ἐκδίκησις, the latter ἐπίσκεψις, whereas mūsâr not only denotes παιδεία, as the chastisement of love (Pro 3:11), but also as the infliction of punishment (= τιμωρία κόλασις, Pro 7:22; Jer 30:14), just as David, when he prayed that God might not punish him in His anger and hot displeasure (Psa 6:2), could not find a more suitable expression for punishment, regarded as the execution of judgment, than יִסַּר (הוֹכִיחַ).
The word itself, which follows the form of mūsâd (Isa 28:16), signifies primarily being chastised (from yâsar = vâsar, constringere, coercere), and included from the very outset the idea of practical chastisement, which then passed over into that of admonition in words, of warning by example, and of chastity as a moral quality. In the case before us, in which the reference is to a sufferer, and to a mūsâr resting upon him, this can only mean actual chastisement.
If the expression had been עָלָיו מוּסָרֵנוּ, it would merely mean that God had caused Him, who had taken upon Himself our sins and iniquities and thus made Himself representatively or vicariously guilty, to endure the chastisement which those sins deserved. but it is שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ מוּסַר. The connection of the words is the same as that of חַיִּים תּוֹכַחַת in Pro 15:31.
As the latter signifies “reproof leading to life,” so the former signifies “the chastisement which leads to our peace.” It is true that the suffix belongs to the one idea, that that has grown up through this combination of the words, like berı̄th shelōmı̄, “my peace-covenant” (Isa 54:10); but what else could our “peace-chastisement” be, than the chastisement that brings us peace, or puts us into a state of salvation?
This is the idea involved in Stier's rendering, “restoring chastisement,” and Hofmann's, “the chastisement wholesome for us.” The difference in the exposition simply lies in the view entertained of the mūsâr, in which neither of these commentators will allow that there is any idea of a visitation of justice here. But according to our interpretation, the genitive שׁלוֹמנו, which defines the mūsâr so far as its object and results are concerned, clearly shows that this manifestation of the justice of God, this satisfaction procured by His holiness, had His love for its foundation and end. It was our peace, or, what is more in accordance with the full idea of the word, our general well-being, our blessedness, which these sufferings arrived at and secured (the synonyms of shâlōm are tōbh and yeshū‛âh, Isa 52:7). In what follows, “and by His stripes (chăbhūrâh = chabbūrâh, Isa 1:6) we have been healed,” shâlōm is defined as a condition of salvation brought about by healing. “Venustissimum ὀξύμωρον,” exclaims Vitringa here. He means the same as Jerome when he says, suo vulnere vulnera nostra curavit. The stripes and weals that were inflicted upon Him have made us sound and well (the lxx keeps the collective singular, and renders it very aptly τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ; cf., 1Pe 2:24). We were sick unto death because of our sins; but He, the sinless one, took upon Himself a suffering unto death, which was, as it were, the concentration and essence of the woes that we had deserved; and this voluntary endurance, this submission to the justice of the Holy One, in accordance with the counsels of divine love, became the source of our healing.
K&D
