Albert Barnes Commentary Isaiah 53

Who hath believed our report?—The main design of the prophet in all this portion of his prophecy is, undoubtedly, to state the fact that the Redeemer would be greatly exalted (Isaiah 53:12). But in order to provide a fair view of his exaltation, it was necessary also to exhibit the depth of his humiliation, and the intensity of his sorrows, and also the fact that he would be rejected by those to whom he was sent.

He, therefore, in this verse, to use the language of Calvin, breaks in abruptly on the order of his discourse, and exclaims that what he had said, and what he was about to say, would be scarcely believed by anyone. Preliminary to his exaltation, and to the honors which would be conferred on him, he would be rejected and despised.

The word ‘report’ (שׁמוּעה shemû‛âh) properly denotes that which is heard, tidings, message, news. Margin, ‘Hearing’ or ‘doctrine.’ The Septuagint renders it, Ἀκοή Akoē—‘Rumour,’ ‘message.’ It refers to the annunciation, message, or communication which had been made concerning the Messiah. ‘The speaker here is Isaiah, and the word ‘our’ refers to the fact that the message of Isaiah and of the other prophets had been alike rejected.

He groups himself with the other prophets, and says that the annunciation which they had made of the Redeemer had been disregarded. The interrogative form is often assumed when it is designed to express a truth with emphasis; and the idea is, therefore, that the message regarding the Messiah had been rejected, and that almost no one had believed and embraced it.

And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?—The arm is that by which we execute a purpose, and is often used as the emblem of power (see the notes at Isaiah 33:2; Isaiah 40:10). Here it denotes the omnipotence or power of God, which would be exhibited through the Messiah. ‘The sense is, ‘Who has perceived the power demonstrated in the work of the Redeemer? To whom is that power manifested which is to be exerted through him, and in connection with his work?’

It refers not so much, as it seems to me, to his power in working miracles, as to the omnipotence demonstrated in rescuing sinners from destruction. In the New Testament, the gospel is often called the power of God (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18), for it is that by which God displays his power in saving people. The idea here is, that comparatively few would be brought under that power, and be benefited by it; that is, in the times, and under the preaching of the Messiah.

It is to be remembered that the scene of this vision is set in the midst of the work of the Redeemer. The prophet sees him a sufferer, despised and rejected. He sees that few come to him, and embrace him as their Saviour. He recalls the ‘report’ and the announcement which he and other prophets had made concerning him; he remembers the record which had been made centuries before concerning the Messiah; and he asks with deep emotion, as if present when the Redeemer lived and preached, who had believed what he and the other prophets had said of him. The mass had rejected it all.

The passage, therefore, had its fulfillment in the events connected with the ministry of the Redeemer, and in the fact that he was rejected by so many. The Redeemer was more successful in his work as a preacher than is commonly supposed, but still it is true that by the mass of the nation he was despised, and that the announcement which had been made of his true character and work was rejected.

For he shall grow up before him – In this verse, the prophet describes the humble appearance of the Messiah. He highlights the fact that there was nothing in his personal aspect that corresponded to the expectations that had been formed of him. There was nothing that should lead them to desire him as their expected deliverer, but rather everything that could induce them to reject him.

He would be of such a humble origin, and with so little that was magnificent in his external appearance, that the nation would despise him. The word rendered ‘he shall grow up’ (ויעל vaya‛al — from עלה ‛âlâh), properly means “to go up, to ascend.” Here it evidently applies to the Redeemer as growing up in the manner of a shoot or sucker that springs out of the earth.

It means that he would start, as it were, from a decayed stock or stump, like a shoot springs up from a root that is apparently dead. It does not refer to his manner of life before his entrance on the public work of the ministry, nor to the mode and style of his education. Instead, it refers to his starting, as it were, out of a dry and sterile soil where any growth could not be expected, or from a stump or stock that was apparently dead (see the notes at Isaiah 11:1).

The phrase ‘before him’ (לפניו l^epânâyv), refers to Yahweh. He would be seen and observed by Him, although unknown to the world. The eyes of people would not regard him as the Messiah while he was growing up, but Yahweh would, and His eye would be continually upon him.

As a tender plant – The word used here (יונק yônēq — from ינק yânaq — to suck; Job 3:12; Song of Solomon 8:1; Joel 2:16), may be applied either to a suckling, a sucking child (Deuteronomy 32:25; Psalms 8:3), or to a sucker, a sprout, a shoot of a tree (Job 8:16; Job 14:7; Job 15:30; Ezekiel 17:22; Hosea 14:7). Jerome here renders it, Virgultum. The Septuagint renders it, Ἀνηγγείλαμεν ὡς παιδίον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ anēngeilamen hōs paidion enantion autou – ‘We have made proclamation as a child before him.’ But what idea they attached to it, it is impossible now to say, and equally so to determine how they came to make such a translation.

The Chaldee also, leaving the idea that it refers to the Messiah, renders it, ‘And the righteous shall be magnified before him as branches which flourish, and as the tree which sends its roots by the fountains of water; thus shall the holy nation be increased in the land.’ The Syriac translates it, ‘He shall grow up before him as an infant.’

The idea in the passage is plain: the Messiah would spring up as from an ancient and decayed stock, like a tender shoot or sucker. He would be humble and unpretending in his origin, and would be such that those who had expected a splendid prince would be led to overlook and despise him.

And as a root – (וכשׁרשׁ v^ekashoresh). The word ‘root’ here is evidently used by synecdoche for the sprout that starts up from a root (see the notes at Isaiah 11:10, where the word is used in the same sense).

Out of a dry ground – This refers to a barren waste, or a place where there is no moisture. Such a sprout or shrub is small, puny, and withered. Such shrubs spring up in deserts, where they are stunted by lack of moisture, and they are most striking objects to represent that which is humble and unattractive in its personal appearance.

The idea here is that the Messiah would spring from an ancient, decayed family—a family in whose root, so to speak, there would still be life, like the remaining life in the stump of a fallen tree. However, there would be nothing in his external appearance that would attract attention or meet the expectations of the nation. Even then, he would not be like a plant of vigorous growth, supplied with abundant rains and growing in rich, fertile soil. Instead, he would be like the stunted growth of the desert sands.

Can anything be more strikingly expressive of the actual appearance of the Redeemer, as compared with the expectation of the Jews? Can there be found anywhere a more striking fulfillment of a prophecy than this?

And how will the unbeliever answer the argument thus furnished for the fact that Isaiah was inspired, and that his record was true?

He has no form – That is, no beauty. He does not have the beautiful form which was anticipated, the external glory which it was supposed he would assume. On the meaning of the word ‘form,’ see the notes at Isaiah 52:14. It is used several times in the sense of beautiful form or figure (Genesis 29:17; Genesis 39:6; Genesis 41:18; Deuteronomy 21:11; Esther 2:17; compare 1 Samuel 16:18).

Here it means the same as beautiful form or appearance, and refers to his state of abasement rather than to his own personal beauty. There is no evidence that in person he was in any way deformed, or otherwise than beautiful, except as excessive grief may have changed his natural aspect (see the note at Isaiah 52:14).

Nor comeliness – (הדר hâdâr). This word is translated honor, glory, majesty (Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalms 29:4; Psalms 149:9; Daniel 11:20); excellency (Isaiah 35:2); beauty (Proverbs 20:29; Psalms 110:3; 2 Chronicles 20:21). It may be applied to the countenance, to the general aspect, or to the ornaments or apparel of the person.

Here it refers to the appearance of the Messiah, as having nothing that was answerable to their expectations. He had no robes of royalty, no diadem sparkling on his brow, no splendid retinue, no gorgeous array.

And when we shall see him – This should be connected with the previous words and should be translated, ‘that we should regard him, or attentively look upon him.’ The idea is that there was in his external appearance no such beauty as to lead them to look with interest and attention upon him—nothing that would attract them, as people are attracted by the dazzling and splendid objects of this world. If they saw him, they immediately looked away from him as if he were unworthy of their regard.

There is no beauty that we should desire him – He does not appear in the form which we had anticipated. He does not come with the regal pomp and splendor which it was supposed he would assume. He is apparently of humble rank, has few attendants, and has wholly disappointed the expectation of the nation.

In regard to the personal appearance of the Redeemer, it is remarkable that the New Testament has given us no information. Not a hint is dropped in reference to his height of stature or his form, nor respecting the color of his hair, his eyes, or his complexion.

In all this, on which biographers are usually so full and particular, the evangelists are wholly silent. There was evidently design in this, and the purpose was probably to prevent any painting, statuary, or figure of the Redeemer that would have any claim to being regarded as correct or true.

As it stands in the New Testament, there is just the veil of obscurity thrown over this whole subject which is most favorable for the contemplation of the incarnate Deity. We are told that he was a man; we are told also that he was God. The image to the mind’s eye is as obscure in the one case as the other, and in both, we are directed to his moral beauty, his holiness, and benevolence as objects of contemplation, rather than to his external appearance or form.

It may be added that there is no authentic information regarding his appearance that has come down to us by tradition. All the works of sculptors and painters attempting to depict his form are mere works of fancy and are undoubtedly as unlike the glorious reality as they are contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bible.

There is, indeed, a letter extant which some claim to have been written by Publius Lentulus to the Emperor Tiberius, during the time when the Saviour lived, which gives a description of his personal appearance. As this is the only legend of antiquity that even claims to be a description of his person, and as it is often printed and regarded as a curiosity, it may not be improper here to present it in a note. This letter is pronounced by Calmet to be spurious, and it has been abundantly proved to be so by Prof. Robinson (see Bib. Rep. vol. ii. pp. 367-393). The main arguments against its authenticity, which entirely settle the question, are:

1. The discrepancies and contradictions which exist in the various copies.
2. The fact that during the time of the Saviour, when the epistle purports to have been written, it can be demonstrated that no such man as Publius Lentulus was governor of Judea, or had any such office there, as is claimed for him in the inscriptions to the epistle.
3. That for fifteen hundred years no such epistle is quoted or referred to by any writer—a fact which could not have occurred if any such epistle had been in existence.
4. That the style of the epistle is not such as an enlightened Roman would have used, but is such as an ecclesiastic would have employed.
5. That the contents of the epistle are such as a Roman would not have used of one who was a Jew.

See these arguments presented in detail in the place above referred to.

It may be added that this is the only pretended account that has come down to us regarding the personal appearance of the Saviour, except the fable that Christ sent his portrait to Abgar, king of Edessa, in reply to a letter which he had sent requesting him to come and heal him, and the equally fabulous legend that the impression of his countenance was left upon the handkerchief of the holy Veronica.

He is despised - This requires no explanation, and it needs no comment to show that it was fulfilled. The Redeemer was eminently the object of contempt and scorn alike by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Romans. In his life on earth it was so; in his death it was still so; and since then, his name and person have been extensively the object of contempt. Nothing is a more striking fulfillment of this than the conduct of the Jews at the present day. The very name of Jesus of Nazareth excites contempt, and they join with their fathers who rejected him in heaping on him every term indicative of scorn.

Rejected of men - This phrase is full of meaning, and in three words states the whole history of man in regard to his treatment of the Redeemer. The name "The Rejected of Men" will express all the melancholy history: rejected by the Jews; by the rich, the great, and the learned; by the mass of people of every grade, age, and rank. No prophecy was ever more strikingly fulfilled; none could condense more significance into few words. In regard to the exact sense of the phrase, interpreters have varied. Jerome renders it, Novissium virorum - ‘The last of men;’ that is, the most abject and contemptible of mankind.

The Septuagint: ‘His appearance is dishonored (ἄτιμον atimon) and defective (ἐκλειπον ekleipon) more than the sons of men.’ The Chaldee: ‘He is indeed despised, but he will take away the glory of all kings; they are infirm and sad, as if exposed to all calamities and sorrows.’ Some render it, ‘Most abject of men,’ and they refer to (Job 19:14), where the same word is used to denote those friends who forsake the unfortunate.

The word חדל châdêl used here is derived from the verb חדל châdal — which means “to cease, to leave off, to desist”; derived, says Gesenius (Lexicon), from the idea of becoming languid, flaccid, and then transferred to the act of ceasing from labor. It usually means to cease, to desist from, to leave, to let alone (see 1 Kings 22:6–15; Job 7:15; Job 10:20; Isaiah 2:22). According to Gesenius, the word here means to be left, to be destitute, or forsaken; and the idea is that he was forsaken by people. According to Hengstenberg (Christology) it means ‘the most abject of men,’ he who ceases from men, who ceases to belong to the number of men; that is, who is the most abject of men.

Castellio renders it, Minus quash homo - ‘Less than a man.’ Junius and Tremellius, Abjectissimus virorum - ‘The most abject of men.’ Grotius, ‘Rejected of men.’ Symmachus, Ἐλάχιστος ἀνδρῶν Elachistos andrōn - ‘the least of men.’ The idea is, undoubtedly, somehow that of ceasing from human beings, or from being regarded as belonging to mankind.

There was a ceasing, or a withdrawing of that which usually pertains to man and which belongs to him. And the thought probably is that he was not only “despised,” but that there was an advance on that—there was a ceasing to treat him as if he had human feelings and was in any way entitled to human fellowship and sympathy. It does not refer, therefore, so much to the active means employed to reject him as to the fact that he was regarded as cut off from man; and the idea is not essentially different from this: that he was the most abject and vile of mortals in the estimation of others, so vile as not to be deemed worthy of the treatment due to the lowest of men. This idea has been substantially expressed in the Syriac translation.

A man of sorrows - What a beautiful expression! A man who was so sad and sorrowful, whose life was so full of sufferings that it might be said that this was the characteristic of the man. A similar phraseology occurs in (Proverbs 29:1), ‘He that being often reproved,’ in the margin, ‘a man of reproofs;’ in the Hebrew, ‘A man of chastisements,’ that is, a man who is often chastised. : ‘O Daniel, a man greatly beloved,’ Margin, as in Hebrew, ‘A man of desires;’ that is, a man greatly desired. Here, the expression means that his life was characterized by sorrows. How remarkably this was fulfilled in the life of the Redeemer, it is not necessary to attempt to show.

And acquainted with grief - Hebrew, חלי וידוע viydûa‛ choliy - ‘And knowing grief.’ The word rendered ‘grief’ usually means sickness, disease (Deuteronomy 7:15; Deuteronomy 28:61; Isaiah 1:5); but it also means anxiety, affliction (Ecclesiastes 5:16); and then any evil or calamity (Ecclesiastes 6:2). Many of the old interpreters explain it as meaning that he was known or distinguished by disease; that is, affected by it in a remarkable manner. So Symmachus, Γνωστός νόσῳ Gnōstos nosō. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, Scientem infirmitatem. The Septuagint renders the whole clause, ‘A man in affliction (ἐν πληγῇ en plēgē), and knowing to bear languor, or disease’ (εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν eidōs pherein malakian). But if the word here means disease, it is only a figurative designation of severe sufferings both of body and of soul.

Hengstenberg, Koppe, and Ammon suppose that the figure is taken from leprosy, which was not only one of the most severe of all diseases, but was in a special manner regarded as a divine judgment. They suppose that many of the expressions which follow may be explained with reference to this . The idea is that he was familiar with sorrow and calamity. It does not mean, as it seems to me, that he was to be himself sick and diseased; but that he was to be subject to various kinds of calamity, and that it was to be a characteristic of his life that he was familiar with it. He was intimate with it. He knew it personally; he knew it in others. He lived in the midst of scenes of sorrow, and he became intimately acquainted with its various forms and with its evils.

There is no evidence that the Redeemer was himself sick at any time—which is remarkable—but there is evidence in abundance that he was familiar with all kinds of sorrow, and that his own life was a life of grief.

And we hid as it were our faces from him - There is great variety here of interpretation and of translation. The margin reads, ‘As a hiding of faces from him,’ or ‘from us,’ or, ‘He hid as it were his face from us.’ The Hebrew is literally, ‘And as the hiding of faces from him, or from it;’ and Hengstenberg explains it as meaning, ‘He was as a hiding of the face before it.’ That is, as a thing or person before whom a man covers his face because he cannot bear the disgusting sight. Jerome (the Vulgate) renders it, ‘His face was as it were hidden and despised.’ The Septuagint: ‘For his countenance was turned away’ (ἀπέστρυπταὶ apestraptai). The Chaldee: ‘And when he took away his countenance of majesty from us, we were despised and reputed as nothing.’ Interpreters have explained it in various ways:

1. ‘He was as one who hides his face before us,’ alluding, as they suppose, to the Mosaic law, which required lepers to cover their faces (Leviticus 13:45), or to the custom of covering the face in mourning or for shame.
2. Others explain it as meaning, ‘as one before whom is the covering of the face, that is, before whom a man covers the face from shame or disgust.’ So Gesenius.
3. Others, ‘He was as one causing to conceal the face,’ that is, he induced others to cover the face before him. His sufferings were so terrible as to induce them to turn away. So John H. Michaelis.

The idea seems to be that he was as one from whom people hide their faces or turn away. This might arise either from a sight of his sufferings, as being so offensive that they would turn away in pain—as in the case of a leper—or it might be that he was so much an object of contempt, and so unlike what they expected, that they would hide their faces and turn away in scorn. This latter I suppose to be the meaning; and that the idea is that he was so unlike what they had expected, that they hid their faces in affected or real contempt.

And we esteemed him not - That is, we esteemed him as nothing; we set no value on him. In order to give greater energy to a declaration, the Hebrews frequently express a thing positively and then negatively. The prophet had said that they held him in positive contempt; he here says that they did not regard him as worthy of their notice. He here speaks in the name of his nation—as one of the Jewish people. ‘We, the Jews, the nation to whom he was sent, did not esteem him as the Messiah, or as worthy of our affection or regard.’

Surely - This is an exceedingly important verse and one that presents considerable difficulty because of the manner in which it is quoted in the New Testament. The general sense, as it stands in the Hebrew, is not indeed difficult. It is immediately connected in meaning with the previous verse.

The meaning is that those who had despised and rejected the Messiah had greatly erred in condemning Him on account of His sufferings and humiliation. They thought: ‘We turned away from Him in horror and contempt. We supposed that He was suffering on account of some great sin of His own. But in this we erred. It was not for His sins but for ours. It was not that He was smitten by God for His own sins—as if He had been among the worst of mortals—but it was because He had taken our sins and was suffering for them.’

The very thing, therefore, that offended us and made us turn away from Him formed the most important part of His work and was really the reason for the highest gratitude. It is an acknowledgment that they had erred, and a confession from that portion of the nation which would be made aware of their error, that they had judged improperly the character of the Sufferer. The word rendered ‘surely’ (אכן 'âkēn—Vulgate, vere) is sometimes a particle strongly affirming, meaning truly, of a certain truth (Genesis 28:16; Exodus 2:14; Jeremiah 8:8).

Sometimes it is an adversative particle, meaning “but” or “yet” (Psalms 31:23; Isaiah 49:24). It is probably used in that sense here, meaning that though He was despised by them, yet He was worthy of their esteem and confidence, for He had borne their griefs. He was not suffering for any sins of His own, but in a cause which, so far from making Him an object of contempt, made Him worthy of their highest regard.

He has borne - Hebrew, נשׂא nâs'â'. Vulgate, Tulit. Septuagint, φέρει pherei—‘He bears.’ Chaldee, ‘He prayed (יבעי yib^e‛ēy) for, or on account of our sins.’ Castilio, Tulit ac toleravit. In these versions, the sense is that of sustaining, bearing, upholding, carrying, as when one removes a burden from the shoulders of another and places it on his own. The word נשׂא nâs'â' properly means “to take up, to lift, to raise” (Genesis 7:17), ‘The waters increased, and lifted up the ark;’ (Genesis 29:1), ‘And Jacob lifted up his feet (see the margin) and came.’ Hence, it is applied to lifting up a standard (Jeremiah 4:6; Jeremiah 50:2); to lifting up the hand (Deuteronomy 32:40); to lifting up the head (Job 10:15; 2 Kings 25:27); to lifting up the eyes (Genesis 13:10, and often); to lifting up the voice, etc.

It then means to bear, to carry, as an infant in the arms (Isaiah 46:3); as a tree does its fruit (Ezekiel 17:8), or as a field its produce (Psalms 70:3; Genesis 12:6).

Hence, it means to endure, suffer, permit (Job 21:3): ‘Bear with me, suffer me and I will speak.’ Hence, it means to bear the sin of anyone, to take upon oneself the suffering which is due to sin (see the notes at Isaiah 53:12 of this chapter; compare with Leviticus 5:1, Leviticus 5:17; Leviticus 17:16; Leviticus 20:19; Leviticus 24:15; Numbers 5:31; Numbers 9:13; Numbers 14:34; Numbers 30:16; Ezekiel 18:19–20).

Hence, it means to bear chastisement, or punishment (Job 34:31): ‘I have borne chastisement, I will not offend anymore.’ It is also used in the sense of taking away the sin of anyone, expiating, or procuring pardon (Genesis 50:17; Leviticus 10:17; Job 7:21; Psalms 33:5; Psalms 85:3).

In all cases, there is the idea of lifting, sustaining, taking up, and conveying away, as by carrying a burden. It is not simply removing, but it is removing somehow by lifting or carrying; that is, either by an act of power or by so taking them on oneself as to sustain and carry them. If applied to sin, it means that a person must bear the burden of the punishment of their own sin, or that the suffering which is due to sin is taken up and borne by another.

If applied to diseases, as in Matthew 8:17, it must mean that He, as it were, lifted them up and bore them away. It cannot mean that the Savior literally took those sicknesses on Himself and became sick in place of the sick, became a leper in place of the leper, or was Himself possessed with an evil spirit in place of those who were possessed (Matthew 8:16). Rather, it must mean that He took them away by His power and, as it were, lifted them up and removed them.

So when it is said (Isaiah 53:12) that He ‘bare the sins of many,’ it cannot mean literally that He took those sins on Himself in any such sense that He became a sinner. It means only that He so took them upon Himself as to remove from the sinner the exposure to punishment, and to bear Himself whatever was necessary as a proper expression of the evil of sin. Peter undoubtedly alludes to this passage (Isaiah 53:12) when he says (1 Peter 2:24), ‘Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree’ (see the notes at Isaiah 53:12). Matthew (Matthew 8:17) has translated it by ἔλαβε elabe (“He took”), a word which does not differ in meaning essentially from that used by Isaiah.

It is almost exactly the same word used by Symmachus (ἀνελαβε anelabe).

Our griefs - The word used here (חלי chăliy) properly means sickness, disease, anxiety, affliction. It does not refer to sins, but to sufferings. It is translated ‘sickness’ (Deuteronomy 28:61; Deuteronomy 7:15; 2 Chronicles 21:15; 1 Kings 17:17); ‘disease’ (Ecclesiastes 6:2; 2 Chronicles 21:18; 2 Chronicles 16:12; Exodus 15:26); ‘grief’ (Isaiah 53:3–4). It is never in our version rendered sin, and never used to denote sin.

‘In ninety-three instances,’ says Dr. Magee (On Atonement and Sacrifice, p. 229, New York Ed. 1813), ‘in which the word here translated (by the Septuagint) ἁμαρτίας hamartias—or its kindred verb—is found in the Old Testament in any sense that is not entirely foreign from the passage before us, there occurs but this one in which the word is so rendered; it being in all other cases expressed by ἀσθένεια astheneia—μαλακία malakia—or some word denoting bodily disease.’ ‘That the Jews,’ he adds, ‘considered this passage as referring to bodily diseases, appears from Whitby, and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matthew 8:17.’

It is rendered in the Vulgate, Languores—‘Our infirmities.’ In the Chaldee, ‘He prayed for our sins.’ Castellio renders it, Morbos—‘Diseases;’ and so Junius and Tremellius. The Septuagint has rendered it in this place: Ἁμαρτίας Hamartias—‘Sins;’ though, from what Dr. Kennicott has advanced in his Diss. Gen. Section 79, Dr. Magee thinks there can be no doubt that this is a corruption which has crept into the later copies of the Greek.

A few Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint also read it ἀσθενείας astheneias—and one copy reads μαλακίας malakias.

Matthew (Matthew 8:17) has rendered it ἀσθενείας astheneias—‘infirmities,’ and intended no doubt to apply it to the fact that the Lord Jesus healed diseases. There can be no doubt that Matthew has used the passage, not by way of accommodation, but in the true sense in which it is used by Isaiah. It means that the Messiah would take upon Himself the infirmities of people and would remove their sources of grief. It does not refer here to the fact that He would take their sins; that is stated in other places (Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:12). But it means that He was so afflicted that He seemed to have taken upon Himself the sicknesses and sorrows of the world; and taking them upon Himself, He would bear them away.

I understand this, therefore, as expressing the twofold idea that He became deeply afflicted for us, and that, being thus afflicted for us, He was able to carry away our sorrows. In part, this would be done by His miraculous power in healing diseases, as mentioned by Matthew; in part by the influence of His religion, in enabling people to bear calamity and in drying up the fountains of sorrow. Matthew, then, it is believed, has quoted this passage exactly in the sense in which it was used by Isaiah; and if so, it should not be used to prove that He bore the sins of men—true as that doctrine is, and as certainly as it has been affirmed in other parts of this chapter.

And carried - Hebrew, (סבל sābal). This word properly means to carry, as a burden; to be laden with, etc. (Isaiah 46:4, Isaiah 46:7; Genesis 49:15). It is applied to carrying burdens (1 Kings 5:15; 2 Chronicles 2:2; Nehemiah 4:10, Nehemiah 4:17; Ecclesiastes 12:5). The verb with its derivative noun occurs in twenty-six places in the Old Testament: twenty-three of these relate to carrying burdens, two others relate to sins, and the other (Lamentations 5:7) is rendered, ‘We have borne their iniquities.’ The primary idea is undoubtedly that of carrying a burden: lifting it and bearing it in this manner.

Our sorrows - The word used here (מכאב mak^e'ob—from כאב kâ'ab—“to have pain, sorrow, to grieve, or be sad”) properly means “pain, sorrow, grief.” In the Old Testament it is rendered ‘sorrow’ and ‘sorrows’ (Ecclesiastes 1:18; Lamentations 1:12–18; Isaiah 65:14; Jeremiah 45:3; Jeremiah 30:15); ‘grief’ (Job 16:6; Psalms 69:26; 2 Chronicles 6:29); ‘pain’ (Job 33:19; Jeremiah 15:18; Jeremiah 51:8).

Perhaps the proper difference between this word and the word translated “griefs” is that this refers to pains of the mind, that of the body; this to anguish, anxiety, or trouble of the soul, that to bodily infirmity and disease. Kennicott affirms that the word here used is to be regarded as applicable to griefs and distresses of the mind.

‘It is evidently so interpreted,’ says Dr. Magee (p. 220), ‘in Psalm 32:10, ‘Many sorrows shall be to the wicked;’ and again, Psalms 69:29, ‘But I am poor and sorrowful;’ and again, Proverbs 14:13, ‘The heart is sorrowful;’ and Ecclesiastes 1:18, ‘He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow;’ and so Ecclesiastes 2:18; Isaiah 65:14; Jeremiah 30:15.’ Agreeably to this, the word is translated by Lowth, in our common version, and most of the early English versions, ‘Sorrows.’ The Vulgate renders it, Dolores: the Septuagint, ‘For us he is in sorrow’ (ὀδυνᾶται odunatai), that is, is deeply grieved, or afflicted.

The phrase, therefore, properly seems to mean that He took upon Himself the mental sorrows of people. He not only took their diseases and bore them away, but He also took or bore their mental griefs. That is, He subjected Himself to the kind of mental sorrow that was necessary in order to remove them. The word which is used by Matthew (Matthew 8:17) in the translation of this is νόσου nosou.

This word (νόσος nosos) properly means sickness, disease (Matthew 4:23–24; Matthew 9:35); but it is also used in a metaphorical sense for pain, sorrow, evil (Rob. Lex.). In this sense, it is probable that it was designed to be used by Matthew. He refers to the general subject of human ills: to the sicknesses, sorrows, pains, and trials of life. He evidently means, in accordance with Isaiah, that He took them on Himself. He was afflicted for them.

He undertook the work of removing them. Part He removed by direct miracle—as sickness; part He removed by removing the cause—by taking away sin by the sacrifice of Himself—thus removing the source of all ills. In regard to all, He furnished the means of removing them by His own example and instructions, and by the great truths which He revealed as topics of consolation and support. On this important passage, see Magee, On Atonement and Sacrifice, pp. 227-262.

Yet we did esteem Him stricken - Lowth: ‘Yet we thought Him judicially stricken.’ Noyes: ‘We esteemed Him stricken from above.’ Jerome (the Vulgate): ‘We thought Him to be a leper.’ The Septuagint renders it: ‘We considered Him being in trouble (or in labor, ἐν πόνῳ en poiō) and under a stroke (or in a plague or divine judgment, ἐν πληγῇ en plēgē), and in affliction.’ Chaldee: ‘We thought Him wounded, smitten from the presence of God, and afflicted.’

The general idea is that they thought He was subjected to great and severe punishment by God for His sins or regarded Him as an object of divine disapproval. They inferred that one who was so abject and so despised, who suffered so much and so long, must have been abandoned by God to judicial sufferings, and that He was experiencing the proper result and effect of His own sins. The word rendered ‘stricken’ (נגוע nâgû‛a) properly means “struck,” or “smitten.”

It is applied sometimes to the plague or the leprosy, as an act by which God smites suddenly and destroys people (Genesis 12:17; Exodus 11:1; Leviticus 13:3, Leviticus 13:9, Leviticus 13:20; 1 Samuel 6:9; Job 19:21; Psalms 73:5, and very often elsewhere). Jerome explains it here by the word “leprous,” and many of the ancient Jews derived from this word the idea that the Messiah would be afflicted with leprosy.

Probably the idea which the word would convey to those accustomed to read the Old Testament in Hebrew would be that He was afflicted or smitten in some way corresponding to the plague or leprosy. As these were regarded as special and direct divine judgments, the idea would be that He would be smitten judicially by God or be exposed to His displeasure and His curse.

It is to be particularly observed here that the prophet does not say that He would thus be in fact smitten, accursed, and abandoned by God, but only that He would be thus esteemed or thought—namely, by the Jews who rejected Him and put Him to death. It is not here said that He was such. Indeed, it is very strongly implied that He was not, since the prophet here is introducing them as confessing their error and saying that they were mistaken. He was, say they, bearing our sorrows, not suffering for His own sins.

Smitten of God - Not that He was actually smitten by God, but we esteemed Him so. We treated Him as one whom we regarded as being under the divine curse, and we therefore rejected Him. We esteemed Him to be smitten by God, and we acted as if such a one should be rejected and despised. The word used here (נכה nâkâh) means “to smite, to strike,” and is sometimes employed to denote divine judgment, as it is here.

Thus it means to smite with blindness (Genesis 19:11); with the pestilence (Numbers 14:12); with emerods (1 Samuel 5:6); with destruction, spoken of a land (Malachi 4:6); of the river (Exodus 7:25) when He turned it into blood. In all such instances, it means that Yahweh had inflicted a curse. This is the idea here: they regarded Him as under the judicial inflictions of God and as suffering what His sins deserved. The foundation of this opinion was laid in the belief, so common among the Jews, that great sufferings always argued and supposed great guilt and were proof of divine displeasure. This question constitutes the inquiry in the Book of Job and was the point in dispute between Job and his friends.

And afflicted - We esteemed Him to be punished by God. In each of these clauses, the words, ‘For His own sins,’ are to be understood. We regarded Him as subjected to these calamities on account of His own sins. It did not occur to us that He could be suffering thus for the sins of others. The fact that the Jews attempted to prove that Jesus was a blasphemer and deserved to die shows the fulfillment of this and the estimate which they formed of Him (John 16:3; Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8).

But he was wounded - Margin, ‘Tormented.’ Jerome and the Septuagint also render this, ‘He was wounded.’ Junius and Tremellius, ‘He was affected with grief.’ The Chaldee has given a singular paraphrase of it, showing how confused was the view of the whole passage in the mind of that interpreter: ‘And he shall build the house of the sanctuary which was defiled on account of our sins, and which was delivered on account of our iniquities. And in his doctrine, peace shall be multiplied to us.

And when we obey his words, our sins shall be remitted to us.’ The Syriac renders it in a remarkable manner, ‘He is slain on account of our sins,’ thus showing that it was a common belief that the Messiah would be violently put to death. The word rendered ‘wounded’ (מחלל (mecholâl)), is a Pual participle from חלל (châlal)—to bore through, to perforate, to pierce; hence, to wound (1 Samuel 31:3; 1 Chronicles 10:3; Ezekiel 28:9). There is probably the idea of painful piercing, and it refers to some infliction of positive wounds on the body, and not to mere mental sorrows, or to general humiliation. The obvious idea would be that there would be some act of piercing, some penetrating wound that would endanger or take life.

Applied to the actual sufferings of the Messiah, it refers undoubtedly to the piercing of His hands, His feet, and His side. The word ‘tormented,’ in the margin, was added by our translators because the Hebrew word might be regarded as derived from חול (chûl)—to writhe, to be tormented, to be pained—a word often applied to the pains of childbirth. But it is probable that it is rather to be regarded as derived from חלל (châlal)—“to pierce, or to wound.”

For our transgressions - The prophet here places himself among the people for whom the Messiah suffered these things, and says that He was not suffering for His own sins, but on account of theirs. The preposition ‘for’ (מן (min)) here corresponds to the Greek διά (dia)—meaning 'on account of'—and denotes the cause for which He suffered. Even according to Gesenius (Lexicon), it signifies here ‘the ground or motive on account of, or because of which anything is done.’ (Judges 5:11; Esther 5:9; Psalms 68:30; Song of Solomon 3:8). It is strikingly parallel to the passage in Romans 4:25: Who was delivered for (διά (dia)) our offences. (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24). Here the sense is, that the reason why He thus suffered was, that we were transgressors.

All along the prophet keeps up the idea that it was not on account of any sin of which He was guilty that He thus suffered, but it was for the sins of others—an idea which is everywhere exhibited in the New Testament.

He was bruised - The word used here (דכא (dâkâ')) means properly to be broken to pieces, to be bruised, to be crushed (Job 6:9; Psalms 72:4). Applied to mind, it means to break down or crush by calamities and trials; and by the use of the word here, no doubt, the most severe inward and outward sufferings are designated. The Septuagint renders it, Μεμαλάκιστα (Memalakista)—‘He was rendered languid,’ or feeble. The same idea occurs in the Syriac translation. The meaning is, that He was under such a weight of sorrows on account of our sins, that He was, as it were, crushed to the earth. How true this was of the Lord Jesus it is not necessary here to pause to show.

The chastisement of our peace - That is, the chastisement by which our peace is effected or secured was laid upon Him; or, He took it upon Himself and bore it, in order that we might have peace. Each word here is exceedingly important, in order to a proper estimate of the nature of the work performed by the Redeemer. The word ‘chastisement’ (מוּסר (mûsâr)), properly denotes the correction, chastisement, or punishment inflicted by parents on their children, designed to amend their faults (Proverbs 22:15; Proverbs 23:13).

It is applied also to the discipline and authority of kings (Job 22:18); and to the discipline or correction of God (Job 5:17; Hosea 5:2). Sometimes it means admonition or instruction, such as parents give to children, or God to human beings. It is well rendered by the Septuagint by Παιδεία (Paideia); by Jerome, Disciplina. The word does not of necessity denote punishment, though it is often used in that sense.

It is properly that which corrects, whether it be by admonition, counsel, punishment, or suffering. Here it cannot properly mean punishment, for there is no punishment where there is no guilt, and the Redeemer had done no sin. Instead, it means that He took upon Himself the sufferings which would secure the peace of those for whom He died—sufferings which, if they could have been endured by them, would have effected their peace with God. The word peace means evidently their peace with God; reconciliation with their Creator. The work of religion in the soul is often represented as peace; and the Redeemer is spoken of as the great agent by whom that is secured. For he is our peace (Ephesians 2:14–15, Ephesians 2:17; Romans 5:1; Romans 10:15). The phrase ‘upon him,’ means that the burden by which the peace of people was effected was laid upon Him, and that He bore it. It is parallel with the expressions which speak of His bearing it, carrying it, etc.

And the sense of the whole is, that He endured the sorrows, whatever they were, which were needful to secure our peace with God.

And with his stripes - Margin, ‘Bruise.’ The word used here in Hebrew (חבורה (chabbûrâh)) means properly stripe, weal, bruise, that is, the mark or print of blows on the skin. Greek Μώλωπι (Mōlōpi); Vulgate, Livore. On the meaning of the Hebrew word, see the notes at Isaiah 1:6. It occurs in the following places, and is translated as stripe and stripes (Exodus 21:25, twice), bruises (Isaiah 1:6), hurt (Genesis 4:23), blueness (Proverbs 20:30), wounds (Psalms 38:5), and spots, as of a leopard (Jeremiah 13:23). The proper idea is the weal or wound made by bruising; the mark designated by us when we speak of its being ‘black and blue.’ It is not a flesh wound; it does not draw blood; but the blood and other humors are collected under the skin. The obvious and natural idea conveyed by the word here is, that the individual referred to would be subjected to some treatment that would cause such a weal or stripe; that is, that He would be beaten, or scourged. How literally this was applicable to the Lord Jesus, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove . It may be remarked here, that this could not be mere conjecture. How could Isaiah, seven hundred years before it occurred, conjecture that the Messiah would be scourged and bruised? It is this particularity of prediction, compared with the literal fulfillment, which furnishes the fullest demonstration that the prophet was inspired. In the prediction nothing is vague and general. All is particular and minute, as if he saw what was done, and the description is as minutely accurate as if he was describing what was actually occurring before his eyes.

We are healed - Literally, it is healed to us; or healing has happened to us. The healing here referred to, is spiritual healing, or healing from sin. Pardon of sin, and restoration to the favor of God, are often represented as an act of healing. The figure is derived from the fact that awakened and convicted sinners are often represented as crushed, broken, bruised by the weight of their transgressions, and the removal of the load of sin is represented as an act of healing. I said, O Lord, be merciful unto me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee (Psalms 41:4). Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak; O Lord, heal me, for my bones are vexed (Psalms 6:2). Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases (Psalms 103:3).

The idea here is, that the Messiah would be scourged; and that it would be by that scourging that health would be imparted to our souls.

It would be in our place, and in our stead; and it would be designed to have the same effect in recovering us, as though it had been inflicted on ourselves. And will it not do it? Is it not a fact that it has such an effect? Is not a man as likely to be recovered from a course of sin and folly, who sees another suffer in his place what he ought himself to suffer, as though he was punished himself? Is not a wayward and dissipated son quite as likely to be recovered to a course of virtue by seeing the sufferings which his career of vice causes to a father, a mother, or a sister, as though he himself were subjected to severe punishment?

When such a son sees that he is bringing down the gray hairs of his father with sorrow to the grave; when he sees that he is breaking the heart of the mother that bore him; when he sees a sister bathed in tears, or in danger of being reduced to poverty or shame by his course, it will be far more likely to reclaim him than would be personal suffering, or the prospect of poverty, want, and an early death. And it is on this principle that the plan of salvation is founded. We shall be more certainly reclaimed by the voluntary sufferings of the innocent in our behalf, than we should be by being personally punished.

Punishment would make no atonement, and would bring back no sinner to God. But the suffering of the Redeemer in behalf of mankind is adapted to save the world, and will in fact arrest, reclaim, and redeem all who shall ever enter into heaven.

(Sin is not only a crime for which we were condemned to die, and which Christ purchased for us the pardon of, but it is a disease which tends directly to the death of our souls, and which Christ provided for the cure of. By his stripes, that is, the sufferings He underwent, He purchased for us the Spirit and grace of God, to mortify our corruptions, which are the distempers of our souls; and to put our souls in a good state of health, that they may be fit to serve God, and prepare to enjoy Him. And by the doctrine of Christ’s cross, and the powerful arguments it furnishes us with against sin, the dominion of sin is broken in us, and we are fortified against that which feeds the disease - Henry.)