p. 635The last three verses of Isa. lii. are considered, apparently with good reason, to belong to the vision of the sacrifice and subsequent exaltation of God’s “righteous Servant,” which is the subject of Isa. liii.
“Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. So shall he sprinkle (or startle,—R.V., marg.) many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider” (Isa. lii. 13-15).
The astonishment is twofold, first at the marred vision and form of the Servant in his sufferings, and next at the marvellous international developments that ultimately result from it. Of the first, the reception that Jesus met at the hands of the Jews is the illustration; and of the second, the world has as yet heard but little. In what sense is it said, “So shall he sprinkle many nations”? Translators and commentators are by no means sure about the answer. “Sprinkle” is a perfectly good translation of the Hebrew, as is manifest by its many other occurrences. “Scatter,” “startle,” “cause to leap,” “gather to himself,” all of which have been proposed as alternatives, do not seem to throw any more light on the matter. It is perfectly true that Messiah will do all these things to many nations; but the question is, Which, if any, is here described? And the answer the scriptures appear best to warrant is “sprinkle,” in the sense of purify by his sacrifice, in causing the many nations at last to know, believe, and obey “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.”
p. 636 The great work of Messiah’s age is not destruction but construction. It will be a much more glorious thing to build the house of God in the earth than to destroy the house of the devil—more blessed to establish the kingdom of God than to destroy the kingdoms of men; and that is what appears to be here indicated.
Paul quotes verse 15 with reference to his proclamation of the name of Christ. He says (Rom. xv. 20), concerning his carrying of the gospel into Rome, “I have striven to preach the gospel not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation; but as it is written, ‘To whom he was not spoken of they shall see; and they that have not heard shall understand.’” But, although Paul carried the gospel into Cæsar’s palace, it was but an incipient fulfilment of the prophecy. There is much more mouth-shutting in store for “the kings” than anything they have yet experienced; and they have never yet “seen” as they are destined to see in the day of Christ. Nevertheless, Paul’s quotation yields a clue to the true understanding of the phrase “sprinkle many nations.” The strangers to whom he and the apostle Peter effectively addressed themselves with the gospel were “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. i. 2). They had come “unto Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel” (Heb. xii. 24).
Imagine this apostolic work revived in the earth in their immortal hands, and those of a host like them under the Lord Jesus at his return (as it will be), and the “sprinkling of many nations” is readily intelligible. Israel will be the first of the nations so sprinkled, as it is written, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Ezek. xxxvi. 25). This is the antitypical water of separation “sprinkling the unclean” (Num. xix.), which Paul expounds of “the blood of Christ . . . purging their conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. ix. 14). Apostolic preaching and practice is the literal illustration of it all.
p. 637 But, “Who hath believed that which we have heard?” Such is the remarkable question that the Spirit of God puts into the mouth of the prophet, speaking of and for his brethren. And, “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Isa. liii. 1.). There was to be something so incredible about the person and experience of the Servant of Yahweh, that, though he should be “the arm of the Lord,” the testimony concerning him, even though strengthened by miracles, should be almost universally rejected. If Jesus be not the Messiah, this must still be the experience of “him that should come,” no matter how distasteful it may be to Israel.
It was not a new doctrine in Israel that Isaiah proclaimed. The offering of Isaac had dramatically foreshadowed the sacrifice and resurrection of the Seed. The rejection of Moses had hinted at the rejection of “the prophet” who was to come. The covenant with David had spoken of the chastening of the Son of God and of David (2 Sam. vii.). And the Psalms had breathed beforehand the spirit of his agonised prayers and entreaties when in the presence of death by violence and wickedness (Ps. xxii.). Therefore, it was nothing new that Isaiah now spoke. But it was, as it were, the reaching of a climax. It is beautifully suggested by Rotherham that in Isaiah’s own prophecy this is the case: “First, a mere hint of temporary discouragement (xlii. 4); second, an open lament over failure (xlix. 4); third, personal ill-usage (l. 6); fourth, here, violent death!”
Paul refers to these things when he quotes this passage in writing to the Romans about the unbelief of the Jews, and the subsequent, but predetermined, call of the Gentiles. “They have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report—or the hearing of us?” (The quotation is from the Septuagint, as are others; but the apostles did not quote the blunders of that translation, but, being guided, according to Christ’s promise, by the Holy Spirit into “all truth,” used it as a familiar and substantially correct version, correcting it only where it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them.) “So then,” continues Paul, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. x. 16, 17). “Every man,” says Jesus, “that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me” p. 638 (John vi. 45). But he immediately guarded his expression—“Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” Again he said, “I speak that which I have seen with my Father. . . . I have told you the truth which I have heard of God” (Jno. viii. 38-40). “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness” (Jno. iii. 11). “What he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony” (John iii. 32). “Though he had done so many miracles before them (“the arm of the Lord”), yet they believed not on him, that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled when he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John xii. 37-38).
But some believed—imperfectly at first, but perfectly at last, as is sufficiently manifest from his promise of their enthronement with him “in the regeneration.” “Ye are my friends,” he said, “if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John xv. 14, 15).
Here, then, is the full unfolding of “that which we have heard.” The prophets—the greatest of whom was Jesus—“heard and learned of the Father.” None of them “saw” like him, for in none of them but in him was God manifested in the flesh. The limitations of their “hearing and learning” are expressly affirmed by Peter (1 Pet. i. 10-12); while on the contrary, it is as expressly affirmed that the Father “giveth not the Spirit by measure” unto Jesus (Jno. iii. 34). And he himself claims the superiority, and the Father Himself attests it by audible voice and visible sign, and by “many miracles.”
But the matter for us is that “that which we have heard” was (and is) on record. And the only faith worth anything is the “one faith” which is built upon that written word. It was because the Jews knew not the voices of the prophets which were read every sabbath, that they fulfilled them in condemning Jesus (Acts xiii. 27). It is for the same reason p. 639 that his doctrine and people are still condemned in Christendom. Again, it is because of this that he says, “When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith upon the earth” (Luke xviii. 8). And it is because of this that the kings of the habitable will make the tremendous mistake of fulfilling his own prophecy in making war against him! (Rev. xvii. 14). Thus the native incredulity concerning “that which we have heard” persists until the day of judgment, and the arm of the Lord remains, in a sense, unrevealed, until He breaks the nations as a potter’s vessel! (Psa. ii.). What a fatal thing it is to turn a deaf ear to “the ministry of the prophets”!
Whole libraries of disputations have raged round this celebrated prophecy: especially since the days of Jesus. Rejecting his claims, the Jews have sought to make out that it refers either to Jeremiah, or to the prophets as a body, or to the nation of Israel. Only the necessities of a theory in straits can account for such perverse ingenuity. The Servant of the text is not the nation, for he is “righteous,” whereas, as has been pointed out, that is a “sinful nation” (Isa. i. 4). It was not Jeremiah (though there was a likeness here, for Jeremiah was a man of sign, who represented the “righteous Servant”), for Jeremiah was not offered as a sacrifice, and raised from the dead. It was not the body of the prophets, for they say, “All we like sheep have gone astray”; but the “righteous Servant” went not astray at any time, and was wounded, not for his own transgressions, but for “ours.”
No, the Servant of Yahweh here and elsewhere spoken of by Isaiah is an individual, and one of such majesty as to be prefigured by “the arm of the Lord.” The “he” and “him” that run through the prophecy necessitate it, and the comparison of his sufferings with those of other men. But the applications made by Jesus himself authoritatively settle the matter for ever, and the New Testament quotations by the apostles are all in harmony therewith.
Yet it must be admitted that a certain substratum of truth underlies the idea that the sufferings of the nation and of the body of the prophets are here before us. It is indicated by the p. 640 apostolic allusions to “the fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil. iii. 10), “the partaking of Christ’s sufferings” (1 Pet. iv. 13). I “now rejoice in my sufferings for you,” says Paul, “and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Col. i. 24). “The ecclesia,” being “in Christ,” is considered as being “crucified with Christ” (Gal. ii. 20), and in this sense is comprehended in Isa. liii. But this is a very different idea from that which would apply the prophecy to the retributive sufferings of an unbelieving and Jesus-rejecting nation!
Messiah is before us in this prophecy in his relations to the Father, to the nation of Israel, and to “the elect.” It is denied by some that it pertains to Messiah at all; but that is only part of the perverseness foretold in the prophecy itself. Who can it be but Messiah? Who is this exalted Servant of Yahweh before whom the kings are to shut their mouths in astonishment? Who is this “arm of the Lord”? Who is this that “prolongs his days,” and in whose hand consequently “the pleasure of Yahweh” prospers victoriously? Who is this mighty victor who divides the spoil with the strong? Who is this prophet like Moses who “maketh intercession for the transgressors”? To any “Israelite indeed,” there can be but one answer, and that is, Messiah. And further, to such a one, in the light of Israel’s history in the first century, A.D., there can be but one further conclusion, and that is, Jesus of Nazareth is he.
In relation to the Father, he was the “righteous Servant” and Son of God. “Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. v. 8). “Being in the form of God, he counted it not a prize to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him” (Phil. ii. 6-9). This is the very spirit of Isa. liii. Again, Jesus himself put it to his disciples when in the crisis of the last supper “there was a strife among them which should be the greatest” (Luke xxii. 24-27). He said p. 641 to them: “Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am among you as he that serveth.”
“He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground.” The allusion is to the earlier Messianic reference of Isaiah to the “rod out of the stem of Jesse” and the Branch to “grow out of his roots” (xi. 1). “Dry,” indeed, was the “ground” when Jesus thus came forth to the house of David. The nation was under the yoke of the Romans, and its religious leaders sunk in the cold formalism that Jesus afterwards so scathingly denounced. Yet from obscure and despised Nazareth, though born in David’s own city, Bethlehem, arose the “tender plant” of promise, “beautiful” to God, though the nation could see “no beauty” in him. “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh upon the heart.” “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings.” This indicates the divine point of view, and the beauty of Jesus therefrom.
But the nation could not see it. To them Jesus was only “a stumbling stone and rock of offence” (Isa. viii. 14; 1 Pet. ii.), as Isaiah and other prophets had declared beforehand. As Jesus himself told them in parable, he was “the stone which the builders rejected,” but which was destined to become the head of the corner by the Lord’s doing, and to be marvellous in their eyes (Psa. cxviii.; Matt. xxi. 42). A crucified Messiah was “to the Jews a stumbling block” (1 Cor. i. 23). “We have heard out of the law,” said they to Jesus, “that the Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man”? (John xii. 34). But what these said “We have heard.” was not the same thing as what the prophets describe as “that which we have heard” (“our report,” Isa. liii. 1). It was a distorted and perverted “report,” corrupted by “the traditions of men,” as Jesus told them, and this led to their “despising” and “rejecting” him, and to the “hiding of their faces from him.” They were agreed only upon one thing concerning him, namely, “that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue” (John ix. 22).
p. 642 But there remained “a remnant” whom Jesus styled “the elect,” and to these he appeared in his true light—not all at once—very dimly at first—but at last clearly and strongly as the exalted Servant of Yahweh spoken of by the prophet. While the nation, with deceitful and desperately wicked heart, rejected him, these, being called by him, gathered round him in ever increasing knowledge and admiration.
They witnessed him bearing the people’s “griefs” and “sicknesses.” At Capernaum he healed Peter’s wife’s mother “and when even was come they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils, and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” (Matt. viii. 17). How literal a matter this was we realise when we look at the case of the woman who touched his garment by stealth (Lu. viii. 43-46). “Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue (dunamis, power) is gone out of me.”
And they heard his own application of the prophecy to himself in his teaching. “It is written of the Son of Man that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought” (Mar. ix. 12). And at the last supper: “This that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors” (Lu, xxii. 37). And after his resurrection, with a strange, new and joyful interest, they heard him say, “O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Lu. xxiv. 25).
Then there was a change and a great enlightenment. The Holy Spirit bestowed in the name of Jesus came upon the witnesses, and they became more like their Master, “of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord,” so that when a wayfarer was found studying this prophecy of Isaiah, they could begin at that same scripture and “preach unto him Jesus.”
Thus it was in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts viii. 26-40). He had been to Jerusalem to worship, and, returning in his chariot via Gaza, was reading Isaiah liii. (It would be p. 643 the Septuagint translation which was then current in Egypt and Ethiopia.) He was sufficiently unspoiled by anti-Christian philosophy which has since become so aggressive, as to perceive that “the prophet or some other man” was in question. Philip, who had been directed by the Holy Spirit, saw him reading this, and said, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” The eunuch humbly and candidly answered, “How can I except some man should guide me”; and invited Philip into the chariot. Having read Isa. liii. 7, 8, the eunuch enquired, “I pray thee of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself or of some other man. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him JESUS.”
This then is the special and providential identification of JESUS with the exalted and righteous “Servant” spoken of in Isa. liii. God had said He would give believing eunuchs and sons of the strangers a place in His house better than of sons and daughters (Isa. lvi. 3, 5), and here was a prominent fulfilment of His gracious promise. Sons and daughters of Israel after the flesh had cast Jesus out, and were consequently given over to “wrath to the uttermost”; while Gentiles from afar were gathered unto the house of God. It is even so to this day. Israel makes void “the voices of the prophets” with traditions, while “the truth” is in Gentile hands. But “the regeneration” is coming.
But what did Philip say to the eunuch? What is covered by that brief and almost tantalising allusion: “He preached unto him Jesus”? We can get a satisfactory answer to the question by referring to what the apostles said of the prophecy in connection with the name of Jesus, and by comparing with it the teaching of Jesus himself. We cannot get a satisfactory answer from the theology of Christendom. According to this we shall be presented with utterly unscriptural and impossible conceptions concerning the sacrifice of Christ.
We shall be told that he died as a substitute—the innocent instead of the guilty. And that “his soul” made an offering for sin, was his “immortal soul,” which, of course, could not die. And that, in virtue of this, our “immortal souls” escape from p. 644 the everlasting pains of a fiery “hell” when we “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” But we shall not be told aright what to believe concerning him, but that he is the Second Person of a co-equal and co-eternal Trinity of gods, and that in some mysterious and inexplicable manner he came down from heaven and underwent “incarnation,” and “died” (though he was immortal), and arose from the dead and returned to heaven, whither the saints of previous ages had preceded him. And we shall be told that he will come again at “the last day,” not to “divide the spoil with the strong,” nor to fulfil any such carnal notion, but to “judge the quick and the dead” (hosts of whom—of “the dead”—had been in “heaven” and “hell” for ages), and to burn up the earth, and take the righteous to heaven, and send the wicked to hell. We shall be told that if we believe these things, and have been sprinkled on the face with water, and marked with the mark of the cross in babyhood when we knew and believed nothing, our “immortal souls” will be saved. And that if we had died in the blissful ignorance of infancy, we should be saved notwithstanding the absence of knowledge and belief, on the strength of what our “godfathers and godmothers did promise and vow for us.” It cannot be gainsaid that this is in the main a true indication of what Christendom says of “the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ.”
But we turn to the apostles. If Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch from Isa. liii., how did Peter and John preach? We have an illustration in Acts iii. They first wrought a “notable miracle” in “the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” A well-known beggar at the Beautiful gate of the temple, who had been lame from birth, was healed in a moment, on the word of Peter, in the name of Jesus. Being immediately surrounded by an astounded and admiring crowd, Peter addressed them concerning the name of Jesus whom God had raised from the dead and glorified, though they had slain him and desired a murderer in his stead. It was through his name (powerful in the days of his flesh to heal the sick, and even raise the dead, as they knew) that the man stood healed in their presence. Now brethren, said Peter, you did it in ignorance; but God has so fulfilled His p. 645 purpose declared in the prophets concerning the sufferings of the Christ. But now do you repent, that your sins may be blotted out when he comes again as promised to “the restitution of all things.” And, as elsewhere (Acts ii.), he would add: “Be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts viii. 13, the R.V. establishes a direct reference to Isa. liii. in the rendering “God hath glorified his Servant Jesus”; that “Servant” of whose sufferings Isaiah there spoke so particularly.
So again, when Peter and John were, because of this matter, imprisoned by the priests and Sadducean objectors to the resurrection. They repeated the explanation given to the people. And, since it could not well be considered a crime to heal a lame man, they were let go, the people being on their side. In their beautiful prayer recorded in Acts iv. 24-30, there is another apparently direct reference to Isa. liii. in the expression (v. 27) “thy holy Servant Jesus” (R.V.).
The apostolic preaching (supported by miracle) consisted in reminding the people of God’s ancient promises and covenants concerning Christ, and then drawing attention to the life and work and suffering of Jesus, and showing that they fulfilled the prophets, and finally, testifying to his resurrection, and proclaiming the remission of sins in his name.
This was what Philip would preach to the eunuch, who was doubtless familiar with most of the premises (comp. Acts x. 37). Philip’s preaching begat in him a desire to be baptized, and coming to certain water, “he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts viii. 38). And the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing.” He now understood Isa. liii. perfectly, and when he read: “By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities,” he was able to include himself among the “many” who, by belief of “that which we have heard,” and by repentance and obedience, have found, and shall find, justification in the name of Jesus.
The “justification” thus illustrated is something altogether different from clerical representations of the sacrifice of Christ and p. 646 its effects. The sacrifice of Jesus was not vicarious, but representative, and the apostles have left on record their explanation of the saying: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Peter’s exhortation based upon the passage under consideration is this: “Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow in his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body to the tree, that we being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye are healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. ii. 21-25).
This is the spirit (and very much of the language) of Isaiah’s prophecy in its application by the Holy Spirit to the name of Jesus. The sins of his people are said to be borne (or carried up, R.V.) in his own body on (or to) the tree, in crucifixion. This is a very different idea from that of the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, an injustice which is nowhere in the scriptures attributed to God.
The federal principle involved is expounded by Paul in his epistle to the Romans (ch. v. 12-19). It is, in effect, this: that sin entered into the world by one man, Adam, and death by sin: that death (dissolution and return to dust) has thus passed upon all, even upon babes who have not themselves sinned, and that thus, through one man’s disobedience, all were made or constituted sinners, and all (with the single exception of Jesus of Nazareth) themselves became actual sinners by individual transgression. That God, in His grace and forbearance, raised up Jesus as a second Adam in the family of Abraham and David, and, commanding him to lay down his life, thus gave him as a sacrifice for sins in his obedience unto death, and for his righteousness’ sake raised him from the dead, and gave him as the head of a new generation of the race which should be begotten upon a higher principle. All men are sons of Adam by fleshly descent; but no man is a son of the Second Adam, or son of God, otherwise than by belief of the gospel and baptism into him.
p. 647 In the belief of the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, and in obeying the same in baptism, a man is said to be “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. vi. 11). Justification is a matter of “grace” and “forbearance” in such a case. As a matter of ordinary usage justification may be a vindication or declaration of the innocence and righteousness of anyone; but in this sense it is affirmable of Jesus alone, “who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” The justification he imparts to his people, or rather, God by him imparts, is not such a declaration at all, but is apostolically defined as “the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Rom. iii. 25). The conditions are that men believe the gospel, repent and are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts ii. 38; Matt. xxviii. 19).
“With his stripes we are healed.” The healing is first mental and moral; in the putting on of his name; but the ultimate effect is physical also, for he “shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body” (Phil. iii. 21). He associated the forgiveness of sins with bodily healing in a striking way when he healed the sick of the palsy, saying to him, “Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. . . . Arise, take up thy bed and walk” (Matt. ix. 6). This was but an intimation of the greater healing that awaits those who, having been by him forgiven, “go and sin no more,” but “endure unto the end” in the way of his commandments.
The expression, “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” found authoritative application to Jesus when John the Baptist, the forerunner “sent from God,” bore witness to him on the banks of Jordan. On two separate occasions it happened, and John said, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (John i. 29, 36). Had there been any of sufficiently “quick understanding,” they would have instantly connected John’s proclamation with Isaiah’s prophecy of Yahweh’s “righteous Servant” who should be led “as a lamb to the slaughter.” But it was “dry ground,” and none understood; and even John himself, and the disciples who thenceforward followed Jesus, had still very much to learn concerning him.
p. 648 It is unnecessary to dwell upon the accurate coincidence of historic fact with prophecy in the matter of the violent, and, humanly speaking, unlawful death of Jesus, and the circumstances of his burial. This phase of the matter is well recognised in Christendom, though it is not perceived that it was his claim to kingship as against Cæsar that, so far as man was concerned, sealed his doom. As regards one detail, some of the learned have stumbled over the bracketing of “the wicked” and the “rich” in verse 9, as though “rich” should be read as an equivalent to “wicked.” A simple acceptation of the New Testament account delivers us. The rich man (it is singular in the original, while “the wicked” is plural) was a disciple, and not a wicked enemy. It was Joseph of Arimathea, whose new rock-hewn tomb was the fitting temporary receptacle of the body that had been once offered for the sins of the world (Heb. x. 5, 10), and was destined not to see corruption (Psa. xvi.; Acts ii.).
If we ask the question, Why did it please the Lord to bruise his “righteous Servant,” to put him to grief and to make his soul (body, life, blood) an offering for sin? we ask a question which touches the roots of divine philosophy (if we may so speak) with regard to man. It is the one great principle enunciated from the day of the expulsion from Eden, that “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. ix. 22). But why so? Because God is “a great King” and His name dreadful among the nations (Mal. i. 14), and because He will not allow a continuance of life in sin. The clothing of Adam and Eve in the skins of slain animals, and the rejection of their fig-leaf devices, was an intimation of this, and so was every shedding of blood under the law of Moses, in the sacrifices of which the offerers, ritually at least, if not discerningly and humbly and affectionately, illustrated the same great principle. It was, as has been well said, “Heaven’s etiquette” that God would not be approached by sinners except upon the recognition of their standing, His offended majesty, and the gracious provision He had made for reconciliation.
If it were so in the shadow (the law of Moses), it was to be so in the substance, Christ. In his own person, though sinless, p. 649 he was to learn obedience by the things which he suffered, that he might teach others, who were sinners, the same obedience. He was even baptised, though sinless, because he partook of sinful flesh, and that he might be manifested to Israel. His answer to John’s objection was this, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” It was appointed, and that was enough.
So, although he was sinless, it was appointed for him to die by bloodshed—“this commandment,” said he, “I have received of my Father” (John x. 18). Isa. liii. is one place where “this commandment” is on record. And so Jesus obeyed, and went forward to accomplish “the pleasure of the Lord” in laying down his life that he might “take it again,” a thing possible in his case because of his righteousness. And God raised him from the dead the third day. In becoming connected with him in the appointed way, believing men and women approach the Father through the blood of His slain Lamb, recognising their hopeless estate as sinners, and humbly accepting and conforming to the conditions of the divinely provided reconciliation.
It is a great and noble philosophy which excludes anarchy from the universe, and makes the pagan and clerical dreams of an eternal duration of misery an utter impossibility. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. vi. 23). In the crucifixion of Christ, through brief but bitter suffering, followed by the glad healing of resurrection to eternal life, a public exhibition for all ages is made of the majesty and justice of God in His dealings with sinners, and at the same time of His great kindness and forbearance in providing in Christ such a means of escape.
“He shall see a seed.” The family of the second Adam is developed on a higher principle than that of flesh and blood begettal, namely, upon the principle of faith and obedience and adoption. Fleshly descent is nothing, as Jesus told the Jews when they boasted of being Abraham’s children and rejected him (John viii. 39). “As many as are led by the Spirit of p. 650 God they are the sons of God” (Rom. viii. 14). They are accepted by the Father “in Christ” when they obey from the heart the form of doctrine delivered by the apostles. They will, like him, be declared sons of God with power by resurrection from the dead at his coming to judge and reward every man according to his works (Rom. i. 4: ii. 7, 16).
“He shall prolong his days.” This promise concerning God’s “righteous Servant” had been given in former times. For instance it was said of the King, “He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever” (Psa. xxi. 4). And again, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (Psa. xlv. 6; Heb. i. 8). The whole substance and beauty of this gracious promise is obscured by that Trinitarian doctrine which represents “the Son” as co-equal and co-eternal with the Father who “gave him life,” “prolonged his days,” and establishes his throne for ever and ever. According to the doctrine of Trinitarianism such a thing as the prolonging of days for the Son is inconceivable, since “his days,” according to that, are of necessity “from everlasting to everlasting,” like those of the Father. The confusion arises from the fable of the immortality of the soul, which makes them regard “the Son” as a “precious immortal soul,” and not as a “body prepared” of the Father (Psa. xl. 6; LXX.; and Heb. x. 5). Yet the angel Gabriel declares the Son of God to be the body born of Mary (Lu. i. 35). This body had no existence before then, and it was the days of this body that were “prolonged” by the Father, for it was not suffered to see corruption; and it was of this body again, when raised and healed, that Jesus said to the disciples, “Handle me and see that it is I MYSELF” (Lu. xxiv. 39).
“The pleasure of the Lord” has “prospered in his hand” ever since, as is most strikingly evident to those who can see in his prophecy in the Revelation, and subsequent history interpreted in the light thereof. But this is scarcely perceived upon earth yet, and the Kingdom of God still remains a matter of hope for the great fulfilment of the prophecy. It will come just as surely as he was crucified.
p. 651 And when it comes, he will “divide the spoil with the strong”; that is with his then almighty brethren. Why should he not? The Gentiles have divided his inheritance among themselves long enough; and his unresisting submission to their indignities in obedience to the will of God was but the preparation for “the day of vengeance” that is coming. And so it is with “his body, the ecclesia.” His people have been oppressed and spoiled ever since he suffered. They have not avenged themselves, but have awaited the day of Christ when he will “justify” them in the sense of publicly proclaiming their righteousness before men and angels, and cutting off their enemies from the earth.
It is “because he hath poured out his soul (blood, life) unto death” that this is to be; “because he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and maketh intercession for the transgressors.” The tense of the verb marks continuance. The prophet spoke as a spectator in a vision. The apostolic doctrine of the mediation of Christ abundantly illustrates this closing feature of the character and mission of Yahweh’s “righteous Servant”—he maketh intercession! He said he would—not for the world—but for transgressors who had repented, for the straying sheep of the house of Israel whom he found and gathered into his fold (John xvii. 9; Isa. liii. 6; John x. 11). And not only so, but he said he would pray for them also who should believe on him through their word (John xvii. 20), those “other sheep . . . not of this fold” (John x. 16), which he said he would gather in, so that there should be “one fold and one shepherd.”
And so it comes to pass that in the remote islands of the northern seas a people is found who, like the Ethiopian eunuch, have come to understand him of whom the prophet speaketh these things; and, having been baptised into his name, are going on their way rejoicing in hope of his coming again in “the restitution of all things.”