« PreviousContinue »
generations; because their sufferings could not be “ the chastisement of their peace,” or avail for “ the healing of former generations.”—And what generation of Israel ever suffered for the sins of their fathers, being themselves innocent and deserving no sufferings ? Neither will it be allowed by the Jews themselves, that Israel suffered for the sins, and in order to the salvation, of the gentiles, or of any part of them. In short, it does not appear that any meaning, even specious meaning, can be given to the passage, except by supposing Israel, or some other colleçtive body, confessing their guilt, and speaking of some individual, who suffered the punishment due to them, in order that they might be. pardoned and saved. Supposing the prophet, for argument's sake, (I do not adduce it as authority,) to mean the company, of whom St. John speaks in the Revelation, who say to “the Lamb that had “ been slain," “ Thou hast redeemed us to God “ with thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation : suppose
the prophet, I say, to mean this company, and himself as one of it, when he says, “ All we, like “sheep,' have gone astray; we have turned every “one to his own way; and JEHOVAH has made
to meet on him the iniquities of us all : any other interpretation be adduced, which will bear a competition with this ? In Isaiah is a lock, the wards of which are so intricate that no key can be found to open it: till at length one is brought from the apostle John, which with perfect ease opens it, at the first touch. Was not this the key originally intended for that lock ?
“ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted :" (more exactly, “ It was exacted, and he became “ answerable :") “ He was led as a lamb to the “slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is “ dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was “ taken from prison and from judgment; and “who shall declare his generation for he was cut off out of the land of the living.” Here the person, who was " bruised for the iniquities” of the company spoken of, of whom their “ debt was “ exacted and he became answerable,” is represented as suffering in meekness, patience, and silence, and not murmuring or complaining; though hurried to execution without judgment, and without any one to appear in his behalf; and not only as suffering grievously in other respects, but as “cut off from the land of the living :" " for “the transgression of my people was he stricken." If the Messiah be intended, it is manifest that he was not only to be a sufferer, a meek, harmless, and patient sufferer, under oppression and iniquity ; but to die also, and by a violent death, as paying a debt, which he did not contract; as " stricken for the transgression" of that people whom the prophet, or Almighty God, owns as his people. Who can help, in this connexion, recollecting the language of Gabriel to Daniel; “ Messiah the Prince shall be cut off, but not “ for himself?”] Different methods have been adopted of evading our conclusion from Daniel's prophecy; but what method can be taken of escaping the same conclusion from Isaiah's? In
! Is. liii. Dan. ix. 25, 26.
admissible as Mr. C.'s interpretation of Daniel has been shown to be; he probably cannot adduce any thing, even so plausible as that is, in respect of Isaiah's words.
“ And he made his grave with the wicked, and “ with the rich in his death; because he had done
no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. “ Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath
put him to grief.” Here the innocence of the sufferer also is attested; yet, notwithstanding this “it PLEASED JEHOVAH to bruise him." He suffered unto death, and was buried. Dying as a malefactor," he made his grave with the wicked." “A grave was appointed for him among the - wicked; but with a rich man in his death." Every one knows the Christian interpretation : namely, that Jesus was interred in the sepulchre of Joseph, instead of being buried with the malefactors, in the grave appointed for them. And is not this singular coincidence of the event, with the obscure words of the prophet, a proof that this was intended by the Spirit of prophecy? Or what other interpretation has any man to propose, which can stand the competition with it?
"That his grave should be “ appointed with the wicked,” (which was the case of those who suf'fered as criminals,) but that “ he should be 'joined with the rich in his death,” are circum
stances which, before they happened, it was very improbable should ever concur in the same person.' (Campbell.)
But how was it that it should“ please the Lord 66 to bruise him," &c. ? What follows answers the question. 66 When thou shalt make his soul
an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he “shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the “ Lord shall prosper in his hand.” Nothing can be plainer than that the person here spoken of, when“ cut off from the land of the living,” when he suffered, and died, and was buried,' would be considered by Jehovah as a propitiatory sacrifice; and therefore as bearing the guilt imputed to him, and the punishment, due to those in behalf of whom he suffered. And therefore as the Lord every where in the law speaks of the typical atonements, and of the smell of the burning victims, as
a sweet savour; because this was a display of his righteous hatred of sin, and determination so to punish it in the sufferings of the person here spoken of; JEHOVAH is said to “ take pleasure in
bruising him, and in putting him to grief, and “ making his soul an offering for sin:” that is, he took pleasure in the display thus made of his glorious holiness and justice, as connected with “the praise of the glory of his grace.” This accords to the language of the apostle: “ Christ “ hath given himself for us, an offering and a “ sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling savour.
It is equally manifest that the person predicted, after “having been cut off from the land of the
living,” and after having been buried, “ should
see his seed, and prolong his days, and that the “ pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his hand.” But how could this be except he rose again? “ Christ died for our sins according to the scrip“ tures; and was buried, and rose again on the
'Eph. v. 2.
« third day, according to the scriptures.”? Let another interpretation, equally satisfactory, be given by those who reject this: and let them not suppose that “ the oracles of God” have no meaning.
“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall “ be satisfied : by the knowledge of him shall my “ righteous servant justify many; for he shall « bear their iniquities.” The person spoken of is here called “ the righteous servant of Jehovah;” this wholly excludes the idea of an individual, or a nation, suffering for personal or national transgression. It is declared that “ he shall bear the
iniquity of those whom he justifies." Not only should he suffer to exempt them from suffering ; but their iniquity should be imputed to him, and laid on him, as on the legal sacrifices. Thus he would “ justify many;” or entitle them to the reward of righteousness, “ by the knowledge of “ him ;” which is equivalent, in this view, to believing in him: and as this was his great object in thus suffering and dying, he would, in justifying many, of the travail” (or agony) of his soul, (when God "made his soul a sacrifice for sin ;;") and “be satisfied;" like the mother, who, “as
soon as she is delivered, remembereth no more “ the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the “ world.”
“ Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the “strong: because he hath poured out his soul “ unto death; and he was numbered with the