Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadCharles Simeon Commentary - Isaiah 53:9 - 53:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE FATHER’S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INNOCENT JESUS EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED
THE accomplishment of the prophecies is one of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity. The predictions which relate to the great Founder of our religion are so numerous and so minute, that they could not possibly have been dictated by any but Him, to whom all things are naked and open, and who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. The very smallest circumstances of our Lord’s death, even such as were most unlikely and insignificant, were pointed out with as much accuracy as those which were most important. What could be more unlikely, than that he should be crucified, when crucifixion was not a Jewish but a Roman punishment? and yet that was foretold by David hundreds of years before Rome was built. What could be more unlikely than that, if he were crucified, he should not have his legs broken, when that was the customary way of hastening the end of those who were crucified, and they who were crucified with him were actually so treated? yet it was foretold fifteen hundred years before, that “a bone of him should not be broken.” What more insignificant, than that the soldiers should part his garment, but cast lots for his vesture? yet that, with many other things equally minute, was circumstantially foretold. So, in the text, his honourable interment after his disgraceful death is predicted: “his grave,” as the words may be translated, “was appointed with the wicked; but with the rich was his tomb.” Now, if we consider the treatment which Jesus was to meet with, it was necessary that such events as could not be foreseen by human wisdom, or accomplished by man’s device, should be foretold; because such a concurrence of circumstances, all happening exactly according to the predictions concerning him, would fully vindicate his character, and manifest that all which he suffered was according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Notwithstanding he was innocent and spotless in himself, yet he was to be treated as the vilest of malefactors: nor was he to be persecuted and put to death by men only, but to be an object also of the Divine displeasure. Therefore it was foretold by the prophet in the text, that, “although [Note: The word “because” should be translated “although.” See Bishop Lowth’s version, which removes all the obscurities from this passage. If this subject were treated separately, and not in a series of Sermons on the chapter, the first and last clauses of the text should he omitted.] he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth, yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief.”
From these words we shall take occasion to consider, first, The innocence of Jesus; secondly, The conduct of the Father towards him; and thirdly, The reasons of that conduct.
I. Let us consider the innocence of Jesus—
The declaration of our Lord’s innocence is here peculiarly strong: it is not merely asserted, That he did no violence, but it is taken for granted as a thing which could not admit of one moment’s doubt; “although he had done no violence.” And indeed, well might it be taken for granted; for, if he were not innocent himself, he could not be a propitiation for our sins: if he had in the least deviated from the perfect law of God, he himself had needed an atonement for his own sins, as much as we for ours. Under the ceremonial law, the lamb that was to be offered in sacrifice at the passover was solemnly set apart four days before, in order that it might be examined; and, if it had the least spot or blemish, it was not worthy to be offered. To this St. Peter refers, when he calls our Lord “a Lamb without blemish, and without spot:” and it should seem that our Lord’s entrance into Jerusalem just four days before the passover, and the strict examination of him before Pilate and the chief priests, were intended to fulfil that type. In reference to the same, St. John says, “He was manifested to take away our sin; and in him was no sin;” for if there had been any in him, he could not have removed ours.
The text sets forth his innocence in two particulars; “he did no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth.” Deceit and violence are the fruits of wisdom and power when abused: and alas! wisdom is but too often employed in devising mischief, as power is in executing it. Our Lord was endued with wisdom; for “in him were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge:” and he was possessed of power; for all nature, animate and inanimate, was under his control; but he never abused either for the purposes of deceit or violence. On the contrary, he employed his wisdom in confounding his captious adversaries, and in explaining the mysteries of his kingdom to his followers: and his power he exerted in working miracles upon the bodies of men, and in effecting the conversion of their souls. Who can read any of his discourses without acknowledging, as they did of old, that “he spake as never man spake?” who that hears him commanding the unclean spirits with authority, and rebuking the winds and the sea, must not immediately confess, that “no man could do these things except God were with him?” Sometimes indeed he answered differently from what we might have expected; as when he told the young man to “enter into life by keeping the commandments:” but this he did, because he knew that the young man’s heart was proud of his great attainments, at the same time that it was glued to his earthly possessions. This therefore was the way, not to deceive, but to undeceive him, by discovering to him the sinfulness of his heart: whereas, if he had told him at once, that the way to enter into life was by believing in him, he would indeed have given a more explicit answer to the question; but he would have left him wholly ignorant of his own corruptions, and would have exposed him thereby to the tenfold danger of making, like Judas, an hypocritical profession. So our Lord may appear to have done violence when he beat the armed men backward to the ground by his word. But this was done in pity to their souls: it was the very way to convince them, that they were about to seize the Lord’s prophet; and thereby to make them desist from their purpose. If they were Jewish soldiers, as doubtless they were, because they were sent by the chief priests and elders, and Pilate was not yet acquainted with their intentions, they could not but have heard the history of the prophet Elijah, who struck dead two different companies of men, consisting of fifty each, who came to apprehend him. Now our Lord struck them to the ground to bring that to their remembrance: and when they would not desist, he resigned himself into their hands. He healed also the high-priest’s servant, whose ear Peter had cut off: and, as he had once before rebuked his disciples, when they would have called fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village that had refused him admission, so now he told them, that “all who took the sword, should perish with the sword.” Indeed, if there had been any deceit in Jesus, Judas would gladly have discovered it, as a justification of his own treachery; and if there had been any violence in him, his numerous and watchful enemies would not have failed to lay it to his charge. But, so far was he from using deceit or violence himself, that he has engaged to deliver his people from all, who, in either of these respects, should attempt to injure them: “He shall redeem their souls,” says David, “from deceit and violence [Note: Psa_72:14.].”
It appears then that his innocence in every respect stands unimpeached; “he was just such an high-priest as became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” Nor was he more clear in the sight of men, than he was in the sight of God; for “he did always those things which pleased his Father:” and thrice did his Father, by an audible voice from heaven, declare him to be, “his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased.”
But, however innocent he was, however free both from violence and deceit, yet he was not dealt with as innocent either by God or man: for, as his own countrymen treated him with the utmost barbarity, so even his heavenly Father acted towards him, as if he had been the greatest of all criminals; as we shall see by considering,
II. The conduct of his Father towards him—
We must acknowledge that there is something inexpressibly awful, and deeply mysterious, in the declaration before us: nevertheless it will be found literally true, that, notwithstanding the complacency and delight which the Father must of necessity have taken in the immaculate Jesus, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him.”
That his heavenly Father did inflict punishment upon him, even these words indisputably prove; as also do the words which immediately follow; “he hath put him to grief.” There is also in other parts of Scripture abundant evidence to confirm it: for, all that either men or devils did, was not only by his permission, but by his express commission. The Father “spared not his Son, but delivered him up;” and though the Jews took him, and by wicked hands crucified and slew him, yet St. Peter says, he was delivered up “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” And indeed, how otherwise shall we account for his agony in the garden! If it was produced by devils, still they “could have had no power against him, except it had been given them from above.” And what shall we say to that bitter lamentation which he uttered upon the cross! The complaint arose, not from any pains of body, but from the desertion and wrath which his soul experienced from his heavenly Father: then the Father “bruised him.” This expression alludes to the holy incense mentioned in Exodus: “The Lord said unto Moses, Take unto thee sweet spices with pure frankincense, and thou shalt beat some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with thee; and it shall be unto you most holy [Note: Chap. 30:34, 36.].” Before these spices could ascend up to God as incense, or be worthy to be laid up in the tabernacle, they were to be “beaten very small:” and in the same manner was Jesus to be bruised, before the incense of his merits could be accepted, or his own person be received into the tabernacle of the Most High. This was by far the most distressing part of our Saviour’s sufferings; nor could we account for his behaviour under them, unless we believed, that they were inflicted by his heavenly Father: for many martyrs have endured all that men could inflict, not only with resignation, but with joy and triumph: but here we see no less a person than the Son of God exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, at the very apprehension of his sufferings: we hear him crying for the removal of the bitter cup, and bewailing in the most pathetic manner the intenseness of his agony.
Nor did the Father bruise him only, but, as the text intimates, took pleasure in bruising him: “It pleased the Lord to bruise him.” The word which is here translated, “it pleased,” includes in it an idea of complacency, and is strongly expressive of pleasure: the import of it is much the same with that which the Apostle uses, when he says, “With such sacrifices God is well pleased: in conformity with which idea, Jehovah is said to smell a sweet savour from those sacrifices which prefigured the crucified Jesus. Indeed, the same idea, though not so expressly asserted, is supported and confirmed by many other passages of Scripture. In the very verse following the text, we are informed, that the Father gave him promises on the express condition that he should endure his wrath for man; that “when he should make his soul an offering for sin; he should see a seed, and should prolong his days;” that is, that, on condition of his bearing the wrath due to sinners, many should be everlastingly saved through him, and with him. In another place we are told that “God sent his Son into the world for this very end, that he might be the propitiation for our sins;” that is, that he might bear the punishment due to them: St. Paul also says, that “Christ was made sin, that is, a sin-offering, for us:” and again, that “he was made a curse for us:” all of which passages shew that God sent him into the world on purpose to bruise him. And when the time should come for executing upon his Son all that he was ordained to suffer, the prophet represents the Father as feeling a complacency in the very net: “Awake, O my sword, against my Shepherd, against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.” We may further observe, that the Father had from the beginning delighted in the sacrifices which were offered, became they were types of that sacrifice, which Christ in due time should offer upon the cross. When Noah came out of the ark, he built an altar, and offered a burnt-offering upon it; and then we are told, “The Lord smelled a sweet savour.” So, at the very time that our Lord was bruised, the Father was pleased with it; for the Apostle says of Christ, that he “gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour;” plainly implying, that as God was pleased with the offering of beasts by Noah, and with the savour of the incense which was composed of bruised spices, so he was pleased with the offering of his own Son, while he was yet consuming with the fire of divine wrath. The Father has moreover exalted Jesus in consideration of his having endured the sufferings which he had appointed him. The Apostle having set forth Christ as obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, adds, “Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name.” In the same manner, every blessing which the Father bestows upon mankind is given as the purchase of Christ’s blood, and as the reward of his obedience unto death. Redemption includes every blessing of the covenant; every evil we are delivered from, and every good which we are ever to possess: and this the Apostle ascribes wholly to the efficacy of Christ’s blood; “We have redemption,” says he, “through his blood:” and another Apostle says, “Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ.”
Now did the Father give promises to his Son on the express condition of his suffering! Did he send him into the world on purpose that he might suffer? Did he delight in other sacrifices merely as typical of those sufferings? Did he declare, that the offering up of his dear Son was an offering of a sweet-smelling savour? Did he exalt Christ for his sufferings? and does he continually bestow the richest blessings on his very enemies as a reward of those sufferings? Did he do all these things, and shall we not acknowledge that the sufferings of Christ were pleasing to him; or, to use the words of the text, that it pleased the Lord to bruise him?
However, we must not imagine that the mere act of inflicting punishment on his only dear Son could be pleasing to him: No: “He delighteth in mercy;” and “judgment is his strange work:” he is averse to punish even his enemies; and much more his own Son. But there were very sufficient reasons why he should be pleased with bruising his own Son; to illustrate which we shall consider,
III. The reasons of the Divine conduct—
If we expect to account for every thing, we shall soon reject the whole of revelation: God never intended that we should; nor indeed is it possible. We know that an ignorant peasant is not able to search out the reasons upon which a profound statesman acts; nor could he even comprehend them, if they were laid before him: and shall we wonder if there be some mysteries in the revelation and in the providence of God which we cannot explore, and which perhaps, if unfolded ever so clearly, would be far above our comprehension? Is not God far more exalted above us, than we can be above our fellow-creatures? We must therefore proceed with great humility and reverence, when we presume to investigate the reasons by which the all-wise God is actuated, especially in subjects so deeply mysterious as this which we are now contemplating. However, we will attempt to assign some reasons for his conduct.
He was pleased when he bruised his Son, first, because the bruising of him was pleasing to his Son. As the Father did not take pleasure in inflicting punishment, so neither did the Son in enduring it, for itself; the punishment, considered separately from its consequences, was equally grievous to him who inflicted, and to him who bore it. But Jesus thirsted for the salvation of men; he knew that it could not be accomplished consistently with the rights of justice and truth, unless he should become their surety: he was well aware of all that he must undergo, if he should stand in the place of sinners; yet he cheerfully undertook it; “Then said he, Lo, I come; I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” And when the time for his sufferings was fully arrived, he drew not back, but said, “Thy will be done;” and “for the joy that was set before him” of redeeming so many millions from destruction, “he willingly endured the cross, and despised the shame.” He reproved Peter as an agent of Satan himself, when he attempted to dissuade him from his purpose: “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me.” And, when the time drew nigh, he so longed for it, that “he was quite straitened till it could be accomplished.” And therefore, as the Father knew how pleasing it would be to his Son to have the iniquities of mankind laid upon him, he himself found pleasure in laying them upon him: it gave him pleasure to put the finishing hand to that which had been agreed upon between them, and thus to make him “the author of eternal salvation” to all his people.
Another reason may be this: God was pleased with bruising his own Son, because it would prove so beneficial to man. We are not to imagine that the Son loved us more than the Father; for the Father expressed as much love in giving his Son, as the Son did in giving himself; the Father testified his compassion as much in laying our iniquities on his Son, as the Son did in bearing them in his own body on the tree. The whole work of salvation is the fruit of the Father’s love: he pitied us when we fell; he in his own eternal counsels provided a Saviour for us before we did fall, yea, before we were brought into existence. He saw how inconceivably miserable we must have been to all eternity if left to ourselves: he therefore covenanted with his Son, and agreed to pardon us, to give us peace, to adopt us for his children, to restore us to our forfeited inheritance, and to exalt us to glory, if he would, by substituting himself in our place, remove the obstacles which prevented the exercise of his mercy towards us. When therefore these counsels were nearly executed, the Father was pleased with putting the bitter cup into the hands of his Son, because it would henceforth be taken out of the hands of all those who should believe in Christ; none should perish but through their obstinate rejection of this Saviour; and all, who would embrace him, would be exalted to far higher glory than they would ever have obtained, if they had never fallen.
A third reason we may assign is this; the Father was pleased with bruising his own Son, because it would put great honour upon the divine law. We cannot but suppose that God must be concerned for the honour of his own law, because it is a perfect transcript of his own mind and will. Now this law had been violated and dishonoured by the transgression of man: if the sanctions of the law were not enforced, the law itself would be set aside; or, if the sanctions were enforced, still the punishment of the offender would never repair the dishonour done to the law, and the contempt he had poured upon it. But by the sufferings of Jesus “the law was magnified and made honourable.” The majesty of the law was manifested in having the Son of God himself subject to it: the authority of the law was established in that its penalties were inflicted even on the Son of God, when he stood in the place of sinners; and therefore no sinner could hope thenceforth to transgress it with impunity: the purity of the law was declared, in that nothing less than the blood of the Son of God could expiate any transgression against it: the justice of the law was held forth, in that it did not relax one jot or tittle of its demands even in favour of the Son of God. Now when the divine law was to be so magnified by the voluntary sufferings of the Son of God, we cannot wonder that the lawgiver should be pleased; especially as the majesty of the law was more fully manifested, its authority more firmly established, its purity more conspicuously declared, and its justice more awfully displayed by means of the sufferings of the Son of God, than it could have been by the everlasting obedience of angels, or the everlasting misery of the whole human race.
The last reason we shall assign is this; the Father was pleased with bruising his own Son, because he himself was thereby transcendently glorified. God cannot but delight in the manifestation of his own glory: nor did he ever manifest it in such bright colours, as while he was bruising his own Son. When Judas went out to betray his Master, “Now,” said Jesus, “the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him.” In that awful hour, the divine perfections, which seemed, as it were, to be at variance, were made to harmonize, and to shine with united splendour. We are at a loss what to admire most; the inflexibility of his justice which required such a sacrifice, or the heights of his love which gave it; his inviolable truth in punishing sin, or the extent of his mercy in pardoning the sinner; the holiness of his nature in manifesting such indignation against iniquity, or his wisdom and goodness in providing such a way of deliverance from it. Every attribute of the Deity is incomparably more glorified than it could have been in any other way; mercy shines in the way of satisfying the demands of justice, and justice in the way of exercising mercy. This view of the Deity was not more new to man, than it was to the angels in heaven; and when a ray of this glory shone forth at the incarnation of our Lord, the angels burst forth in joyful acclamations, and sang, “Glory to God in the highest.” Since then the bruising of our Lord tended so much to the manifestation of the divine glory, no doubt the Father was well pleased with it.
We might assign more reasons, if it were necessary; but we trust that these are sufficient for the justifying of the Father’s conduct towards his Son. If, as has been shewn, the Father saw that the bruising of his Son would be pleasing to his Son, beneficial to man, honourable to his law, and glorious to himself, it can surely be no imputation on the Father’s character to say, “It pleased him to bruise his Son.”
Amidst the many reflections which naturally arise from this subject, such as the greatness of the Father’s love (in that “he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all”), and the danger of unbelief (in that, if we yield to it, the Father’s wrath will infallibly fall on us [Note: Mar_16:16.]), and others too numerous to mention, we shall confine our attention to one; namely,
How great must be the evil of sin!
We have seen the immaculate Jesus bruised under the weight of his Father’s wrath, and his Father pleased with bruising him; and from whence did this arise? From the evil, the dreadful evil, of sin. Sin had introduced confusion into the divine government; sin had set the divine perfections at variance: sin had dishonoured the divine law: sin brought the Son of God from heaven: sin put him to death: and, had he not died, sin would have sunk us all into the lowest abyss of misery for ever. Sin reduced God himself to the necessity of delighting either to punish us, or to bruise his own Son. What must sin be, when such are the effects arising from it! And yet how lightly do we think of it! how unconcerned are we about it! But did our Surety think lightly of it, when he cried, “My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” Did the Father think lightly of it, when he was bruising his own Son? and do they think lightly of it who are now receiving the wages of it in hell? If nothing less than the blood of Christ could expiate it, is it a small evil? If it crushed even HIM with its weight, though he had none of his own to answer for, shall we find it easy to bear, who are so laden with iniquities? Let us but look at sin one moment as it appears in the death of Jesus; let us recollect that he was God equal with the Father; and that yet he almost sunk under the load; let us recollect this, I say, and we shall surely begin to tremble, lest we should lie under the weight of it for ever. We never shall see sin aright, till we view it in the tears and groans, the blood and agonies, of the Son of God: for there at once we behold both the evil, and the remedy of sin; there at once we learn to fear and hope, to weep and rejoice. If we look at sin in any other view, we may dread its consequences: but we shall never hate its malignity. But if we view it in the dying Jesus, we shall be delivered from the fear of consequences, because the guilt of it was expiated by him; and we shall begin to lothe it as a hateful and accursed evil. This is the only source of ingenuous, evangelical repentance; nor till we “look on Him whom we have pierced, shall we ever mourn aright for sin, or be in bitterness for it, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.” Let us then look at sin in this light, and we shall soon be like-minded with the Father; we shall be pleased with the sufferings of Jesus; they will be our hope, our plea, our joy, our boast; and we shall exultingly say with the Apostle, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”