Father Bisping's Commentary on Isaiah 52:13–53:12
Theme: The Completion of the Servant of God's Mission Through His Voluntary Self-Sacrifice
The Humiliation of the Servant of God as the Source of Our Glorification
Isaiah 52:13
"Intelliget" (He shall understand/act wisely): The Hebrew text כָּשַׂל (yaskil) can be translated in two ways: either "to act wisely/to have insight" or "to be prosperous/to succeed." The ancient translators adhered to the first meaning, and rightly so, for the second half of the verse does not stand parallel to the first but contains its consequence; together they form the theme of the entire section: Because my Servant acts wisely, therefore he shall be exalted and glorified.
Isaiah 52:14–15
Both verses belong together, inasmuch as verse 15 forms the concluding clause to verse 14: sicut obstupuerunt, sic iste asperget ("just as they were astonished, so shall he sprinkle"). The second half of verse 14 merely forms an explanatory expansion of obstupuerunt ("they were astonished"). In the same measure as the peoples were previously astonished at him, they shall afterward venerate him. Instead of this, the Prophet gives the reason for such veneration: he shall sprinkle them.
"Aspectus" (appearance) explains itself through forma (form). "Inglorius" is a litotes [understatement] in the Hebrew: מִשְׁחָת (mishchat), meaning "corruption" or "marred."
"Asperget" (he shall sprinkle): In Hebrew זָרַק (yazzeh), meaning "to sprinkle"—entirely a liturgical expression referring to the sprinkling of the Ark of the Covenant, or of the leper, or of one who had become unclean through contact with a corpse. The sprinkling is always meant to be done by moistening with the finger; in the last case, with a hyssop branch. The first ritual cannot be alluded to here, because there the Ark—not the people—was sprinkled. But if we consider verse 14 concerning the disfigurement of the Servant of God, and compare it with 53:4, where it is depicted under the image of leprosy, then we clearly see that our "sprinkling" is first taken from the purification of the leper and then transferred to purification in a broader sense. The expression "to sprinkle" had in Old Testament usage, without any closer specification, such a definite meaning as our word "to baptize." The heathen stand with the unclean and lepers on one level: outside the covenant of God. To purify them thus means to receive them into God's covenant. He, who himself seemed excluded from God's covenant, will introduce the nations into it, so that kings worship before him.
The translation of modern scholars—"so shall he cause [them] to leap up," namely, for joy and astonishment—is contrary to the decisive usage of the Hebrew word and is demanded by nothing in the context; for this joyful astonishment, in contrast to the contemptuous astonishment, is already contained in continebunt reges os suum ("kings shall shut their mouths"). If continebunt were parallel to asperget, we would expect et ("and"). We can establish the connection thus: Just as in the measure that many despised him, so before him—who purifies the many nations—kings shall shut their mouths. "Os continere" (to shut the mouth, to be silent) is a sign of humble submission. Before a more powerful one, one does not dare to speak.
"Quibus non": Jerome related לָמוֹ (lamo) to אֲשֶׁר (asher) and supplied de eo ("concerning him"). "To see" and "to behold" is stronger than "to hear."
Isaiah 53:1
This verse presents difficulty because of the connection, which it suddenly interrupts. So much is clear: in 52:13–15, God speaks; in 53:1–11, the Prophet; at the conclusion, verse 12, again God. This dramatic change of persons belongs only to the form, and the division is so arranged that God places the theme, and the Prophet the execution, in his mouth; the whole is concluded by an asseveration on God's part. Apart from this connection, verse 1, containing an exclamation, is not about the incredibility of the message entrusted to the Prophet, but about the unbelief with which it was factually received—in short, a lament over the people. All difficulty would vanish of itself if we saw it at the end of our chapter, namely: Thus says the Lord through me: But who believes our message? etc. This exclamation at the end we can now also see at the beginning. The Prophet has such an extraordinarily comforting message; it pains him most that it finds so little acceptance, so little faith. "Ah," the Prophet answers, as it were, to God, "who believes our message, and who acknowledges it as your work, when we speak? He shall go forth," etc.
"Auditus" (report): What is heard from us, what we proclaim—preaching, message, announcement.
"Arm of the Lord": The cooperation of the Lord. The second half is parallel to the first, but not as an explanation of auditus, but of credidit ("believed"). Who believes? Who acknowledges the cooperation of God, the work of God, in our prophetic message?
Isaiah 53:2
"Ascendet" (he shall grow up): In the Hebrew text, the future with vav conversive. The present meaning results from desideravimus ("we desired").
"Coram eo" (before him): Namely, before the Lord.
"A young plant" which grows up in a dry place thrives only poorly and is little noticed. De terra sitienti ("out of thirsty ground") also belongs to ascendet ("he shall grow up").
The second half also begins, according to the Hebrew text, with et vidimus ("and we saw"), so that it is not parallel to desideravimus ("we desired"), but rather more to ascendet; and we must take et desider with non from above, or take et correspondingly as a consecutive particle.
Isaiah 53:3
"Novissimus" (the last/lowest): So that after him no man comes.
"Infirmitas" (infirmity/sickness): In the broader sense, misery and suffering in general.
"Et quasi absconditus vultus ejus" ("and as one from whom the face is hidden") carries the description further; yet it is not immediately dependent on what precedes, but attaches itself more closely to verse 4a and forms a whole with it, just as verses 2 and 3a do. Quasi absconditus, namely, a nobis ("as if hidden from us"), because one did not look at him, despised and neglected him. It does not point to a shame that the Servant of God might have, but on the contrary, the shame that people felt before him.
"Despectus" (despised) does not refer to vultus ("face"), but to servus ("the servant"), just as the above desideravimus ("we desired").
Isaiah 53:4
"But": The cause of his disfigurement was us. Sickness and pains disfigure a person; this sickness is further specified as leprosy—that sickness which most terribly disfigures a person. Sickness and pains are the consequences and penalties of sin. "To bear our sicknesses" thus means: to take upon himself the penalties of our sins, to atone for our sins. With what intention? With what success? Whether such a transfer is possible? These are questions that the Prophet answers in sequence. Here he first establishes the initial proposition: He bore our pains; and so that he might not be misunderstood, he adds the explanation himself: verse 5, he was wounded because of our sins; and verse 6, God laid upon him the guilt of us all.
"Et nos reputavimus eum": Stands quite parallel to et quasi of verse 3.
"Leprosus" (as a leper): As an expression of the deepest misery, the most terrible visitation of God; the following percussum a Deo ("stricken by God") explains it—that "leper" is to be taken in a figurative, not literal, sense. He was a second Job, so that we kept ourselves far from him and feared to defile ourselves if we approached him; yet now it was precisely our uncleanness that he had taken upon himself.
נִגְעָה (nig'ah, "leper/stricken"): Modern scholars prefer to take it according to its root meaning, "stricken"; but that is already said by makkah ("plague"), and in "leper" lies precisely the reason why one kept distant, why one did not look at him.
Isaiah 53:5
"Ipse" (he himself) attaches just as closely to verse 4b as verse 4a to verse 3b. The Hebrew text uses two very strong expressions: חָלַל (chalal, "pierced through")—vulneratus est ("he was wounded"); and דָּכָא (daka, "crushed")—attritus est ("he was crushed").
The second half of the verse stands by itself and gives the intention together with the result. The intention was to make satisfaction for our sin; the result was our healing and sanctification.
"Disciplina pacis nostrae" (the chastisement for our peace): "Chastisement," "discipline," "penalty"; "peace" in the broadest sense: the restoration of the whole inner person, salvation. The chastisement as a necessary precondition of our salvation, our reconciliation with God. Divine justice had to be satisfied; it had pronounced the penalty of death over sin. Forgiveness could thus only take place where this penalty was borne.
The result corresponded perfectly to the intention.
"Livor" (stripe/bruise): The scar which remains from the wound—effectus pro causa ("the effect for the cause"). The Prophet remains with the image of the blow in order to emphasize the violent and painful nature properly.
"Sanati sumus" (we are healed) already has its explanation in pax: the inner, spiritual healing and sanctification which, in its completion, also results in a restoration of the body in blessed immortality.
Isaiah 53:6
The Prophet had hitherto used "our" quite absolutely: our sins, our sicknesses, etc. Was there then no exception to this? Was not the whole chosen people exempt from it? And if we all—all were sinners—did the Servant of God take upon himself the atonement for all, or only for some? The answer is given in our verse, and so completely that it needs no further discussion.
"Omnes nos" (all of us): Jews as well as heathens; no soul excepted.
"To go astray" is said of turning aside from the right path, abandoning God's ways, sinning. "To turn aside to his own way" is first merely an expansion of the image of "going astray"; but therein lies at the same time a hint at the concupiscence by which man allowed himself to be driven—onto the way of the flesh. That this going astray is self-inflicted guilt is shown by the second half of the verse.
Here, however, the Prophet already passes over to the exposition of the possibility of an atonement and satisfaction for our sins. It lay:
In the will and counsel of God;
It was voluntarily taken upon himself by the Servant of God;
He himself was perfectly free from all guilt and sin.
Isaiah 53:7
This self-surrender was not imposed by God upon his Servant—a fate he could not avert (posuit super eum), but voluntarily taken upon himself by him. Therein lies the merit of his work, the wisdom of the Servant; therein lies the ground of his glorification.
"Ob latus est" (he was offered): Instead of "driven, pressed," Jerome—with Symmachus, Syriac, Chaldean, and the Septuagint—takes נִגַּשׁ (niggash, "to draw near"), especially of sacrifice: oblatus est quia ipse voluit ("he was offered because he himself willed it")—literally according to the Hebrew text: "And he—he bowed himself." The somewhat freer translation of Jerome is acknowledged as perfectly well-founded.
"Et non aperiet" (and he did not open) forms the concluding clause to sicut ovis ("as a sheep"), etc. Thereby arises an exact parallelism of the two half-verses.
Isaiah 53:8
Explains oblatus est more closely: a bringing forth in sacrificial death. From this we see that for the sense it is quite indifferent whether we adopt Jerome's reading or remain with the Masoretic text. For if we leave it as "he was oppressed," our verse shows that it was an oppression unto death—a surrender not merely to sufferings, which have hitherto alone been emphasized, but also unto death, and indeed a violent, bloody death by a judicial sentence, so that it received entirely the character of a sacrifice.
"Sublatus est" (he was taken away): Jerome took this in the meaning "to be freed": from anguish and from judgment he was taken away, i.e., freed. But the whole connection rebels against this, inasmuch as the Servant of God, on the contrary, is subjected to judgment; for what does abscissus est ("he was cut off") and verse 10 mean otherwise? Sublatus est e medio ("he was taken away from the midst").
"De angustia et de judicio" stand here causally: through anguish and judgment, through judicial sentence. There we can unite both expressions into one concept: through an oppressive, violent, unjust judicial sentence; or leave them standing separately: through anguish, maltreatment, violence, and through judgment he is taken away.
But, the Prophet continues, is it then finished with him? On the contrary: who shall recount his generation? Does his posterity not multiply like the sand of the sea? Will not his blood be a rich seed from which thousands of his confessors spring forth?
In our short half-verse is the same contrast as above in verses 2–3 and 4. Quia abscissus est ("because he was cut off") forms the explanation of sublatus est ("he was taken away"), and propter ("because of") the reason why it so happened: quia (כִּי, ki, "for/indeed"). Through anguish and condemnation he is taken away; for—or even stronger: indeed—he is cut off from the land of the living, etc. On account of the intervening phrase generationem ejus ("his generation"), one better leaves out the particle entirely or gives it with vere ("truly").
Verses 9, 10, and 11 contain the closer disclosures concerning generationem ejus, etc., and conclude the whole content of the prophecy. The connection presents itself very simply if we supply to the last half-verse quis enarrabit? ("who shall recount?"): He was cut off from the land of the living—but who shall recount his generation?
Instead of percussi ("I struck him"), Jerome has percussit ("he struck"), which lies closer to the Hebrew נָגַע (naga, "he touched/struck"—he probably read נָגַע); but he translated it as plaga eis ("a plague to them") and referred it to the Jews—obviously against the connection. Without force, it can only be referred to the Servant of God; but that it is used of the singular as well as the plural, no connoisseur of the Hebrew language any longer denies. Already Jahn (Appendix Hermeneuticae, fasc. II, p. 24) advanced this assertion, and Ewald as well as Hitzig unhesitatingly conceded it. Percussi is probably a correction occasioned by populi mei ("my people") in the mouth of the Prophet: "our people," shorter: "because of our sins he struck him." לָמוֹ (lamo)—לָהֶם (lahem, "to them").
Isaiah 53:9
In the translation of our verse, Jerome followed the Septuagint. It can be justified from the Hebrew text, whether Jerome supplied before קִבְרוֹ (qivro, "his grave") the ב (beth) from the parallel בְּמֹתָיו (bemotav, "in his deaths"), or took it as an accusative of relation. He gives: in consideration of his grave, the godless; and the rich, for his death.
בְּ (beth) is used in Hebrew preferentially of exchange and sale, of the giving of one thing for another.
"Eo quod": Corresponds exactly to the Hebrew עַל (al), elliptically for עַל־כֵּן (al-ken, "therefore"). This meaning is certainly the one, though problematic.
"Rich" often stands, especially in the Psalms, synonymously with wicked, godless, violent; this meaning is already given here by the parallel "the godless."
Concerning dare ("to give"), our verse does not explain itself; but verse 12 speaks quite sufficiently clearly about it: it means "to hand over," "to give into one's power." What does verse 11 teach?
At present one translates almost universally: he made with the wicked his grave, and with the rich—in his death—he was, although it fits well in the connection, but nothing compels us to abandon the understanding of the Vulgate.
The second half of the verse contains the answer to the question concerning the possibility of such a transfer. It lies in the perfect sinlessness of the Servant of God. Inasmuch as he is without guilt, he can take our guilt upon himself. The contrast to verse 6 shows that iniquitas is to be taken in the strictest sense: absolutely nothing evil.
Isaiah 53:10
Justification of verse 8, as already shown. The first half of the verse quite generally; the second, the specific designation of the manner of this surrender.
"Infirmitas" (infirmity) attaches itself to the first verses of our chapter: sufferings and pains of a violent kind, as they are connected with the bloody sacrificial death and always accompany the sacrificial life. The whole life of the Servant of God is a suffering voluntarily taken upon himself, and the final sacrificial death the completion of the whole, the fulfillment of the sacrificial idea which is expressed in everything that we encounter in the life of the Servant of God.
"Ponere pro peccato animam suam": To give the soul, the life, for sin—for our sin—indeed speaks clearly enough of the vicarious death of the Servant of God; but the Hebrew text is still more significant and definite, namely: if he shall have given his soul as a sin offering—שִׂים אָשָׁם (sim asham), a guilt offering in the broader sense, at the same time a sin offering; with double accusative: to give a thing—here animam suam ("his soul")—as a sin/guilt offering.
The feminine תָּשִׂים (tasim, "she shall put") makes some difficulty; ordinarily one regards נַפְשׁוֹ (nafsho, "his soul") as subject and supplies se ("himself"): if his soul shall have given itself.
"Voluntas Domini" (the will of the Lord): The eternal counsel of God concerning our redemption, as it has hitherto been set forth.
"In manu ejus": Namely, of the seed; through them, the posterity.
"Dirigere": To establish and make firm, corresponding to the Hebrew צָלַח (tsalach, "to prosper, to have success").
Isaiah 53:11
The Hebrew likes to connect the two expressions "to see" and "to be satisfied." The object is lacking here; at first one might think back to verse 10: videbit semen ("he shall see seed"); but to this saturabitur ("he shall be satisfied") fits in no way. We must think the expression as comprehensively as possible: he shall see all that his soul desired and be satisfied thereby.
The most excellent explanation is given by Psalm 16:15, 17: "But I, in righteousness, shall behold your face; I shall be satisfied when your glory appears." To see the face of God and to be satisfied with his glory encompasses time and eternity. Here below, it expresses the constant gracious nearness of the Lord, who turns his face to us and fills our soul with his blessings; beyond, it designates the vision of him face to face.
"In scientia": Parallel to intelliget in 52:13—through his knowledge, his insight and understanding. This knowledge is the living knowledge of a holy God who abhors every sin, and whom he reveals to us. Through his knowledge of God, he shall justify many. Our justification does not proceed exclusively from the suffering of Christ, but from the whole Christ; the whole life is one inseparable act of our justification. In biblical usage, however, now the one, now the other moment is more or singly emphasized, without negating the others. So also here can stand: through his knowledge of God and his revelation he justifies us—especially since the supplement follows immediately of itself: and he shall bear their sins.
Isaiah 53:12
Summarizes everything briefly once more.
"To divide, to subject": To distribute the spoil of the strong—namely, to him, the Servant of God; for the subject remains God, even if the person changes. In the Hebrew the same word חָלַק (chalaq, "to distribute, to apportion") is retained, so that it says: et fortis dispertiet ei spolia ("and the strong one shall distribute the spoils to him"): to assign the strong as spoil—a sign of perfect dominion. The expression is figurative and designates the spiritual dominion of the Servant of God, as it is still often described in the following chapters.
"Tradidit" (he delivered/poured out): Even stronger—the Hebrew הֶעֱרָה (he'erah, "he poured out"), whereby the sacrificial death is definitely predicated and ponere pro peccato ("to give for sin") in verse 11 is perfectly explained.
"Rogare" (to pray/intercede): In the broadest sense of the word: to be advocate, mediator—designating the high-priestly office of the Servant of God.
Through chapters 49 and 50, we have already been prepared for the fact that the Servant of God, in his office, will encounter many difficulties and obstacles. He will be treated and persecuted as a false prophet. Our prophecy teaches that he will succumb to these persecutions and give his blood for the truth.
The natural point of connection for this foresight lay close at hand: on the one hand, in the fate of the prophets in general, all of whom had to traverse a thorny path; on the other hand, in the particular circumstances of the Exile, which, through its pleasantness, easily made one forget the homeland, while the power of Babylon mocked all attempts at a return—especially for those who still carried in their hearts that holy longing for the fatherland. The longer the Exile lasted, the greater was the apostasy, the more difficult the prophetic activity.
Yet it always had to cause astonishment: How is it that the Servant of God, the beloved of the Lord, who stands in an altogether extraordinary relationship to God and is the wonder and the power (cf. 9:6; 11:2), is not exempted from all sufferings and attacks, and is not to be portrayed as the inviolable, untouchable friend of God—"Touch not my anointed ones"?
This apparent contradiction between the dignity and majesty [of the Servant] and the external fate of the Messiah is resolved in our prophetic communication: He will, through the voluntary surrender of his life in a violent death, become the sacrifice and the satisfaction for our sins.
The words of our chapter are so clear that they require no further justification or confirmation of what has been said. The New Testament, which teaches reconciliation through the death of Jesus Christ—as no one disputes—knew no other or more expressive terms for this than those of our prophecy. It could not express itself more clearly than has been done here.
Compare 1 Peter 2:21–25:
"Christ suffered for us" (cf. Isaiah 53:5)
"He who committed no sin, in whose mouth no deceit was found" (cf. Isaiah 53:9)
"When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but entrusted himself to him who judges justly" (cf. Isaiah 50:6)
"He himself bore our sins in his body" (cf. Isaiah 53:4)
"By his wounds we have been healed" (cf. Isaiah 53:5)
When Paul says, "Christ was made sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21), he has also taken this strong expression from our chapter (verse 10). And so it is at all places where the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ is spoken of. Indeed, even where Christ speaks simply of his death, he appeals to our prophecy with the words: "I tell you, this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'" (Luke 22:37, citing Isaiah 53:12).
A clear view of the high significance which the Apostles attached to this prophecy, and of the probative force which they found in it, is presented to us in Acts 8:28–35. The treasurer of Queen Candace was reading our chapter and asked the Deacon Philip: "I beg you, of whom does the prophet say this—of himself or of someone else?" Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, he proclaimed to him the gospel of Jesus.
Redemption through suffering and vicarious satisfaction is a universally human idea. Under the most varied symbols and mysteries, it is found—albeit only hintingly—among the educated ancient peoples (cf. Creuzer, Symbolik, II, p. 270; Buttmann, Mythos des Herakles; von Lassaulx, Linosklage).
Among the Jews, this idea had to find acceptance all the more easily and come to clearer consciousness, since it underlay all their sacrifices, and prophetic passages like ours spoke so openly of it. To be sure, as they gradually sank ever deeper into the carnal, into a merely external understanding of the Law, and lost its spiritual comprehension, this truth also had to be withdrawn from them. With the increasing carnal pride in the Law, their minds turned away in the same measure from the idea of a suffering—that is, humbled, poor—Servant of God. And since the power of the prophetic words was still too great to be entirely ignored, their Messiah had to be divided into two: a glorious one, as Son of David, and a suffering one, as Son of Joseph. The latter was to be killed in the war against Gog and Magog; the former was to complete the liberation of his people and live and reign eternally.
The oldest rabbinic theology indeed knows nothing yet of such a double form of the Messiah. But how early the prophetic truths of our passage were obscured for the Jews—especially through the influence of Pharisaic dialectic, comparable to the degeneration of the Scholastics—we see in the disciples of the Lord himself. They did not understand or comprehend him when he spoke of his death, still less when he spoke of his sacrificial death. Therefore the Lord himself held back with this teaching; we find it expressed only hintingly, until shortly before his death, when he points to it with all emphasis.
In our chapter, we celebrate a high triumph of faith. It has pleased divine wisdom to proclaim the mystery of all mysteries so unequivocally, centuries beforehand, that through its fulfillment it could only be grasped more definitively and factually apprehended, but not designated more precisely or decisively.
The Servant of God, through the atoning, vicarious power of his suffering, forms a new humanity which brings to completion the eternal counsels of God—that is the content of our prophecy, that is the content of the entire Gospel.
Chapter 53 speaks too clearly of the Messiah, of Jesus Christ, for us to burden ourselves with the thankless labor of refuting other attempts at explanation—whether referring to the people as the Servant of God, or to the prophetic office. But this is of significance: that we must consequently hold fast, also in the earlier chapters, to this same Jesus Christ or Messiah as the Servant of God, inasmuch as his prophetic activity and his prophetic sufferings are set forth from beginning to end, unto martyrdom and sacrificial death.
Concerning the connection with the preceding and following chapters, cf. the Introduction, p. 28.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment