Chapter Fifty-Three

Chapter 53, the immediate continuation Isa 52:13-15, is divided by content into three parts: in the first (1–8a) there is an extensive speech by the prophet about the sufferings of the Servant and the redemptive significance of those sufferings; in the second (9–10) a speech from the same person about the great reward awaiting the Divine Sufferer; and in the third (11–12) the words of the Almighty Master of the world about the sufferings and glorification of the Lord’s Servant, confirming the inspired speech of the prophet (I. Grigoriev “cited work”. 207 p.).

By the power and depth of prophetic vision, by the vividness and liveliness of the images given here, by the astonishing precision of various historical details, and finally, by the deep penetration into the inner meaning of the greatest mysteries—the incarnation and redemption—the prophecy of chapter 53 has no equal in all the Old Testament and is deservedly recognized as the “culminating point” of all Old Testament prophecy.

“This is the center of the wonderful book of consolations (40–54 chapters), and at the same time the very focus, the highest and deepest point of all Old Testament prophecy” (Delitzsch, vol. II, 353).

1–3. Prophecy about the appearance of the Messiah in the “form of a servant.” 4–6. The reason and purpose of such extreme divine condescension toward humanity—the mysteries of incarnation and redemption. 7–9. Astonishing details from the history of the Savior’s sufferings, His crucifixion and burial. 10–11. Disclosure of the inner meaning of the great Golgotha sacrifice. 12. The concluding moment of redemption—the solemn glorification by God of the Innocent Sufferer.

Isaiah 53:1. [O Lord!] Who has believed what we have heard, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? “Who has believed what we have heard, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” This verse presents the general introduction to the speech of chapter 53, in which the speaker, the subject of the speech, and its addressees are determined. Since the establishment of all this is extremely important for the correct understanding of this chapter, and there is disagreement among commentators on this matter, we shall clarify it in some detail. Most medieval rabbinical and modern rationalist exegetes, unwilling to acknowledge the messianic meaning of this chapter, hold the view that the speaker here is the prophet Isaiah himself; but the subject of his speech is not the Messiah, but the Jewish people in general or, more precisely, the period of their hard, political existence (“the suffering of the days of the Messiah”), and the listener, whom the prophet rebukes, turns out to be the entire unfaithful pagan world that oppresses God’s chosen people. But if such an attempt to give the speeches of the prophet Isaiah “about the Messiah” a collective meaning had no success before (Isa 49:3), then the repetition of it here has even less justification, since from the entire analysis of chapter 53 it is clear that it deals with a single individual, not an embodiment of a community (see especially “a man of sorrows” (3) “all we have gone astray... the Lord has laid on Him the iniquities of us all” (6) “He suffered willingly” (7) “for the transgressions of my people He received punishment” (8) “He had done no wrong and there was no deceit in his mouth” (9) and others). Not without reason does even such a freely-thinking exegete as Duhm say the following on the question at hand: “The Messiah here is treated, as much as possible, even far more individually than in the rest of the songs, and the interpretation of His personality in the sense of the actual or ‘true’ people of Israel here is entirely impossible (vollends unmögich – ‘Das Buch Jesaia’ – 365 p. Gothingen 1892). And along with this hypothesis falls the other, as connected with it, that the exclusive listeners to whom this reproving speech of the prophet was addressed were representatives of the pagan world that pressed upon the people of Israel. From the criticism of false opinion, let us turn to the clarification and substantiation of the correct one, expressed although very apodictic, but, unfortunately, without sufficient proof. “There is no doubt that the speaker here is the prophet Isaiah himself, the unbelieving or doubting ones are Jews, and the listeners are Jews and Gentiles” (I. Grigoriev, p. 207). The correctness of the view just set forth is established, first of all, by an analysis of the context of the speech. A whole series of preceding speeches by the prophet Isaiah (48–50) contained fierce reproofs of the Jewish people for their “disbelief” in the meek Servant of the Lord, that is, in the Messiah. They included addresses both to the entire multitude of Israel and to its worse part separately. In particular, the last, chapter 52, contained an address to the better part—to the spiritual Zion, to whom was announced the coming of a great Evangelist and joyful mutual greeting of watchmen, on account of the coming salvation and peace (7–8). But evidently all these joyful tidings did not at all reach the ears of those to whom they were first of all intended: and the voice of the Evangelist and his watchers for the vast majority of the Jewish people was “a voice crying in the wilderness,” because it could not bear fruit on this hardened, stony soil. To this unbelieving majority of Israel the prophet Isaiah now cries out with his prophetic word, wishing, on the one hand, to shatter the false messianic expectations of the Jews and prepare them for the humble appearance of the meek and saving Messiah, and on the other, to make this last call to the unbelieving mass of this once-chosen people and deprive them of any pretext for possible self-justification. Clear confirmation of such a view is found, first of all, in the prophet Isaiah himself, who repeatedly and in expressions no less strong than those found in chapter 53 reproached the Jews of his time. So, already in chapter 6, in the account of the prophet Isaiah’s very commissioning by the Lord, we read, among other things, the following: “Go and tell this people; ‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed.” (Isa 6:9-10).

Isaiah 42:20. Or again: “You have seen many things, but you do not understand; your ears are open, but you do not hear” (Is. 42:20; Cf. Isa 28:9-15). Finally, the last shadow of doubt must disappear in the light of New Testament commentaries on this chapter. So, in the Gospel of John the places from the prophet Isaiah already cited by us, as well as the beginning of chapter 53, are directly cited to expose the disbelief of the Jews: “Although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him; so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: ‘Lord, who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’” (John 12:37-41). Likewise, Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, putting the beginning of chapter 53 in direct connection with the preceding speech about the preaching of the Evangelist among Israel (Isa 52:7), further says: “But not all have obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what they have heard from us?’” (Rom 10:15-16). A number of secondary questions remain. Why, for instance, does the prophet speak of himself in the plural? Obviously, because he speaks here not only personally for himself, but for the entire multitude of Old Testament prophets who announced the Messiah. A parallel to this is seen at the beginning of chapter 40, where the divine command to comfort the people of Israel is given not to Isaiah alone, but to many prophets (Isa 40:1). By “what we have heard” (“what our ear heard” LXX and Slavonic) one should, most correctly, understand the specific prophetic revelation about the Messiah and His kingdom (Isa 21:10; Isa 28:9; Jer 49:14; Obad 1:1; and others). Hence, in the general sense, all divine signs and miracles given for the instruction of Israel can be understood under it. In particular, here by “revelation of the arm of the Lord,” judging by the context (Isa 52:10), one should understand the miraculous revelation of the power and glory of God in the Church of Christ. If the prophet says that this arm for some has already been “revealed,” he means not in the sense of the actual coming of this epoch, but in the sense of faith in it, subjective inner conviction in its future coming.

Isaiah 53:2. For He grew up before Him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him. In verses 2–3, the extremely humble, meek, and even degraded external appearance and the corresponding social position of the Messiah are described. By all this, the prophet obviously goes directly to meet the very main and most pernicious prejudice of the Jews about the fierce and magnificent appearance of the Messiah whom they expected and His role as a victorious, earthly king-conqueror. “For He grew up before Him.” The immediate grammatical meaning of the speech, it seems, speaks for the fact that here the relationship of the Messiah to the Lord, that is, of God the Father to God the Son, is revealed. Many ancient and modern exegetes understand this place exactly this way (Vitringa, Schmidt, Hoffmann, Delitzsch, Duhm, Bishop Peter, Vlastov, The Pulpit Commentary, and many others). But with such an understanding, the logical connection of thoughts becomes quite unnatural: before the Face of God the Father there ascends, and in the most wretched and humble manner, He Who from eternity was “in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18) and for whom, of course, there was no sense in any prophetic warnings about the external appearance of the Messiah about to appear. But the latter was extremely important and necessary for people, especially for the erring Jews, who had formed for themselves a most perverted idea of this. “Therefore, it is better to refer the suffix (‘before Him’) to the subject of the question from the first verse, that is, to the individual person of the prophet and the collective person of the people of Israel.” (I. Grigoriev, p. 209; see also Commentary of St. Petersburg professor, 813 p.). “Like a young plant and like a root out of dry ground.” Instead of the first definition “young plant,” the Seventy and our Slavonic have “like a child.” The Hebrew word—jonach—allows both translations: applied to a human being, it refers to “a nursing infant,” and applied to plants, to “a young, tender shoot.” One cannot help but notice that both these comparisons occur quite frequently among various prophets, including the prophet Isaiah himself, although the latter (“branch”), apparently, predominates (Isa 7:14-16; Isa 9:6; Isa 11:1; Job 14:7; Job 15:30; Jer 23:5; Ezek 17:4; Zech 6:12; and others). “Like a root out of dry ground.” The Seventy. Instead of “parched,” Aquila translated it as “impassable”—notes blessed Jerome: “to show the superiority of virginity—that without any human seed He came forth from the earth, which had previously been ‘impassable’” (and also John Chrysostom). By all the comparisons mentioned, especially the last, the prophet sufficiently prepared the minds of his listeners for what he further says directly, without any images and likenesses. The best parallel to this comparison is given by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 17:23). “He had no form or majesty... nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” Here, in simple and clear words, is the essence of the entire prophetic depiction of the external appearance of the meek and humble Son of God, who appeared in the form of a servant. Aquila translated: “He has no form or beauty.” And Symmachus more elaborately: “He has no form or dignity that we might recognize Him, nor majesty (υεωρια) that we might desire Him.” The “Servant of the Lord” in His appearance to people has neither the form nor the external circumstances which would be desirable for them or which they expected at His appearance, according to their natural reasoning; for, says Saint Cyril of Alexandria, “He had no form and glory befitting God” (Exod 19:16-20); but He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness; and being found in human form” (Phil 2:7 – See Commentary of St. Petersburg professor, 814). These words, however, cannot be understood in the sense that the Savior’s outward appearance was so wretched and miserable that it repelled people. On the contrary, all Christian antiquity bears witness to the outstanding spiritual beauty of the Face of the Savior. They simply mean only that the meek heavenly Teacher had not that haughty, proud appearance, that nobility of birth and that magnificence in manner of life with which the Jews in their false expectations about the Messiah had already surrounded Him in advance.

Isaiah 53:3. He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces He was despised, and we held Him of no account. “He was despised and rejected.” The content of the third verse reinforces the thought of the second even more: there it was said that the Messiah has no special distinctions and stands out in no way from ordinary mortals. Here we add that if He stands out at all, it is only in a negative, not a positive way: He is lower and more contemptible than all others; how then can He, after this, claim the role of Messiah? About the contempt with which the majority of Jews and Gentiles will meet the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah has already spoken before (see Isa 49:7). And indeed, by His birth in a cave, His origin from Nazareth, His constant friendly dealings with tax collectors and sinners, the Messiah during His earthly life constantly gave occasion for the blind leaders of the Jewish people to speak of Him with contempt and enmity (Matt 15:2; Luke 19:7). “And rejected by others,” or as in the Slavonic “more than all the sons of humanity.” Based on biblical usage (Isa 2:9; Ps 141:4), many are inclined to understand here by “sons of humanity” the “distinguished representatives” of the Jewish people, especially its scribes and Pharisees, these most hardened enemies of the Lord. Symmachus translates this with ελαχιστος—“the least of people,” and Jerome with novissimus—“the youngest of all.” And these two latter translations, apparently, most aptly convey the meaning of the text, whose task it is to point to the extremely low, degraded social position of the Messiah, Who, coming from the lower class and dealing more with the common people, constantly met an insulting-cold and haughtily-contemptuous attitude from the distinguished, rich, and influential official leaders of the people. “A man of suffering.” From Hebrew—isch maciboth—means: “a man or human being of labors, sorrows, sufferings” (Exod 3:7). An additional synonym to this definition is the following: and acquainted with infirmity. This is either a general definition of human nature, whose natural lot is sorrows and sicknesses, or even a more particular indication of sinful human nature, since exhausting toil, various sicknesses, and sorrows entered human nature as the direct consequences of the fall (Gen 3:16-19). The latter interpretation is also held by blessed Jerome, who says that this text “indicates the true human body and true human soul of Him Who, knowing how to bear our infirmities, overcame all of them by His Deity” (blessed Jerome). Here, therefore, the very depth of the mystery of the incarnation is covertly designated: God, appearing in the flesh, took upon Himself our fallen nature so that by His redemptive death He might cleanse it, elevate it, and glorify it, as Apostle Paul beautifully clarified, saying: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). “And as one from whom others hide their faces.” Aquila and blessed Jerome translate this somewhat differently and as though His face was hidden, according to which the latter interprets this place in the sense that the Lord intentionally concealed or did not reveal, did not manifest His Divine Almightiness, so that in humility He might willingly bear the burden of human sin that He accepted. As a result, of course, people “turned away” from Him, that is, did not recognize Him as the Messiah and even mocked Him when He presented Himself as the true Messiah. Many commentators see the prototype of this feature in the story of the much-suffering Job: “Those who knew me have turned against me. My familiar friends have forgotten me” (Job 19:13-14); or: “He has made me a byword of the peoples, and I am one before whom people spit” (Job 17:6). The suffering Messiah is represented as removed from human society, like people with leprosy. This is the extreme degree of possible social degradation of a person, when the community separates him from itself as an unworthy member.

Isaiah 53:4. Surely He has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted Him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. From verse 4 through 6, the prophet gives the key to solving such an astonishing and inexplicable phenomenon for most of the Old Testament humanity—the sufferings and humiliation of the Messiah. From the story of the righteous Job we know well that in the consciousness of Old Testament wise men, the idea of innocent sufferings could simply not fit: if someone suffered, then he was consequently guilty; this was the usual logic of that time, which the Jews, of course, would begin to apply to the suffering Messiah about whom the prophet speaks here, lawfully seeing in the prophet’s words an internal contradiction: if he of whom you speak is the Messiah, then He should not suffer (because He must be innocent); if He will suffer, then He is already not the Messiah. The prophet Isaiah resolves this apparent contradiction here, revealing that although the Messiah will suffer, it is not for His personal guilt, but for our common sins. He will appear as an Innocent Sufferer, and therefore His sufferings will have such an exceptional, purifying-redemptive power. For a better understanding of both this verse and the entire section we are considering (4–6), the interpretation of verse 4 should begin with its second half, where the starting point of the speech is given. Yet we accounted Him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. The prophet here unites himself with the believing Jews and speaks, as it were, on their behalf about their former delusion and repentance of it. The essence of the delusion of the Jews, according to their own consciousness, lay in the fact that they, seeing the Messiah bearing terrible sufferings and the shame of degradation, thought that He was a great sinner, if God had punished Him so harshly. The Hebrew verb that indicates this punishment—nega—refers, chiefly, to leprosy (Lev 13:3; Num 12:9-10; 2 Sam 15:5; and others), which is also in accord with the context (verse 3). And from the history of the Savior’s crucifixion sufferings we indeed know that many saw in the very fact of His shameful death proof of His imposture and divine punishment for it (Matt 27:43). The same is spoken of in the well-known evangelical cry of the Divine Sufferer: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46). Likewise, the Gospels note that even at the very foot of the cross there were already believers in the Crucified One, such as one of the thieves crucified with Him and a Roman centurion (Luke 23:40-43). Surely He has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases... We thought His pain was punishment from God; but no, we were bitterly mistaken: it turns out He Himself willingly bore our infirmities and our diseases. Based on the content of the doctrine of redemption, many exegetes are inclined to understand by “infirmities” and “diseases” exclusively spiritual infirmities, that is, “sins” of people. But the Hebrew terms—makib and holi—are not used to denote the concept of “sin.” Therefore, it is much more correct to interpret these definitions in their direct, literal sense, since “infirmities” and “diseases,” as a consequence of the fall, are the best indication of the cause that produces them. At the same time, one cannot help but see here a correspondence with the content of verse 3 (“a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity”), in which, generally speaking, the humiliated state of the Messiah is described, which is here clarified.

Isaiah 53:5. But He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the punishment that made us whole, and by His bruises we are healed. “But He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities.” There is a repetition and more detailed disclosure of the thought just expressed about the actual meaning of the Messiah’s sufferings. This is the clearest and most powerful prediction of the crucifixion and death of the Savior, the significance of which was recognized for a long time even by ancient rabbinical tradition. (See examples from the Midrash in the commentary of St. Petersburg professor, pp. 818–819). So, Rabbi Jose the Galilean, in response to the question: “which is greater in your opinion—the measure of goodness or the measure of vengeance?” answers: “the measure of goodness is greater, and the measure of vengeance is less. But the King Messiah humbled and degraded Himself for transgressors, as it is said: but He was wounded for our transgressions... Surely the Lord has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.” How much greater are His merits for all generations, as it is written: and the Lord has placed on Him the sins of all.” The verb “wounded” or “pierced”—Hebrew halal—indicates, generally, physical suffering, in particular, precisely piercing with a spear (Ezek 32:25). Here there is reference to the well-known evangelical detail of the piercing of the Savior’s side. “Crushed for our iniquities,” or as some translate it “broken,” instead of “crushed.” Here, consequently, another moment of suffering is emphasized—the heavy spiritual anguish of the Divine Sufferer, which He foresaw in the Garden of Gethsemane and experienced with full intensity at the moment of His crucifixion (Matt 26:37-38; Matt 27:46; cf. Ps 21:17; Ps 87:4-8). “The punishment that made us whole was upon Him.” “Punishment—musar—can be understood in two senses: juridical and pedagogical. The Seventy and the Vulgate understood it in the latter sense, hence: παιδεια ειρηνης ημων, disciplina pacis nostrae. But the context of the speech inclines us to combine both senses: the punishment of the Servant of the Lord was, on the one hand, recompense before the justice of God for the sins of humanity, that is, it had a juridical character, was poena mulcta; on the other hand, by destroying sin living in human nature (Rom 6:6), it made possible for people to be brought to the Heavenly Father (Eph 2:18), and thus also had a pedagogical significance.” (Commentary of St. Petersburg professor, p. 819). Consequently, this was actual punishment, but such by means of which peace (reconciliation) with God was achieved for us, peace that had been broken by the fall. Therefore, the prophet Isaiah had every reason to call the Messiah earlier a “Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6). “And by His bruises we are healed” or as in the Slavonic translation, “by His wounds we are healed.” This prophecy shows astonishing precision regarding the chief moment of the redemptive ministry of the Messiah—His crucifixion, when the precious blood flowing from His pierced hands and feet healed humanity from the deadly sickness of sin. Apostle Peter speaks almost the same when he writes: “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by His bruises you have been healed” (1 Pet 2:24; See Grigoriev – 215). The whole power of this healing lies in the fact that here not only is the external wound of sin healed, but also its inner root is killed and torn out—“making peace through the blood of His cross, reconciling all things, whether on earth or in heaven” (Col 1:20).

Isaiah 53:6. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. “All we like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way.” The beginning of the verse (“all we”) testifies to the broadening of the scope of the prophet’s speech: here the prophet speaks no longer on behalf of the converted Jews, not even on behalf of the people of Israel in general, but on behalf of all humanity, on behalf of all descendants of fallen ancestors. This is one of the finest poetic depictions of the universality of sinful corruption in the human race and its complete religious and moral unprincipledness, instability, and decline. One should also note that the very fact of contrasting our common sinfulness (“all we,” consequently, even so-called Old Testament righteous ones, and the prophet himself) with the sinlessness of the Messiah decisively rises up against any attempt to identify the personality of this Servant with anyone from among representatives of sinful humanity. The image of a flock deprived of a shepherd, taken here for comparison, is one of the favorite, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament (Num 27:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Matt 9:36; John 10:11-16; and others). It speaks not so much of the maliciousness of the wandering as of the bewilderment and helplessness of those who have strayed, which is especially applicable to the pagan world, which, according to the testimony of Apostle Paul, earnestly sought God, but could not only find Him (Rom 1 chapter). “And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” or as in the Slavonic: “and the Lord gave Him over for our sins.” The words cited are directed against the very essence of Jewish delusion. The Jews thought that if someone suffered, this meant that the Lord punished him or “gave” him over to calamity for his own sins. The prophet here says: yes, the Messiah too is subjected to divine punishment, the Lord “gives” Him over to sufferings; but the entire depth of the difference lies in the fact that these sufferings will be recompense not for His personal guilt, but for “the iniquities of us all.” “The Lord gave Him over for our sins, so that He instead of us might bear that which, on account of the weakness of our strength, we could not bear,”—as blessed Jerome beautifully explains this. It is easy to see that the expression of this verse is based on an image taken from the details of religious ceremonies on the day of atonement—namely the symbolic act of the high priest laying the sins of all Israel on the head of the scapegoat (Lev 16:21-22). Both the basic thought of this verse and the images present in it are beautifully revealed in New Testament Scripture, especially in Apostle Paul, who says of Jesus Christ that “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).

Isaiah 53:7. He was tormented, but suffered willingly, and did not open His mouth; like a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so He did not open His mouth. From verses 7–9 inclusive, there is a special speech about the sufferings, death, and burial of the meek Servant of the Lord, the humble Son of the Father, that is, the suffering Messiah. “He was oppressed, but He suffered willingly.” A repetition of the old thought (4–6), but with a certain new addition—namely, a clearer indication of the voluntary character of the Messiah’s redemptive sufferings. The general character of the Messiah’s sufferings here is designated by one word—“He was oppressed,” in the Slavonic—“He was afflicted.” “To be in affliction” properly means to be the object of someone’s malice, to endure oppression and experience suffering. “As cruel drivers torment poor animals (Exod 3:7), as cruel-hearted people mock those who fall into their hands (Isa 3:12; Isa 58:3), so cruelly and mercilessly do evil tormentors torment the innocent Servant of the Lord” (I. Grigoriev, p. 218). “Yet He suffered willingly and did not open His mouth.” Here the prophet Isaiah speaks for the first time with such clarity about the voluntary character of the Messiah’s redemptive sufferings, wherein lies their saving power. It is true that hints of this appeared earlier, for instance, in the place where, describing the meek appearance of the Servant of the Lord, he says of Him that “He will not cry out or lift up His voice, or make it heard in the street. A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench” (Isa 42:2-3); or even more covertly in another place: “The Lord God has opened My ear, and I was not rebellious” (Isa 50:5). But apart from the fact that the meaning of these texts is quite veiled, they speak more of the general character of the teaching and life of the Messiah, or of His complete obedience to the will of the Heavenly Father. In the passage we are now considering, it is clearly and definitively said that the Messiah’s sufferings were not merely passive, but active in character, were not only submissive submission to another’s will, but at the same time an expression of His own will, an act of the highest personal self-sacrifice. The second half of this verse—“like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth”—is a beautiful illustration of the thought just expressed—the voluntary character and silent endurance by the Messiah of all the terrible and completely undeserved sufferings. The image itself is taken by the prophet from the everyday life; but it also appears not to be devoid of a prefiguring character, as it hints at either the Passover lamb or the sacrificial lamb, which before slaughter was usually bound, and he endured all this patiently and meekly. Each of these sacrifices had a prefiguring significance in relation to the great Golgotha sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7; John 1:29; Rev 5:6). This same image appears almost literally again in the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 11:19): “But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter.” Regarding the fulfillment of the prophecies of this verse, almost all commentators agree in seeing in it an astonishingly precise picture of the ridicule and mockery of the Innocent Sufferer, which He endured patiently and meekly during the unjust high-priestly trial (Matt 26:62-63; Matt 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:9; John 19:9-10). This same touching moment is noted by Apostle Peter in the following words: “When He was abused, He did not return abuse; when He suffered, He did not threaten; but He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly” (1 Pet 2:23). For the prophet Isaiah himself, the closest parallel to this verse is the already known place to us: “I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.” (Isa 50:6). Finally, one cannot pass over in silence the fact that precisely this place from the prophet Isaiah served as the grateful theme for an evangelistic speech by apostle Philip, addressed to the eunuch of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians—Kandakes, and ending with the baptism of the latter (Acts 8:28-35).

Isaiah 53:8. From restraint and judgment He was taken; but who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He suffered punishment. “By a perversion of justice He was taken away.” In his commentary on this place, blessed Jerome says: “from oppression and from judgment He was taken,” or the Seventy translated—“in the humiliation of His judgment He was taken,” meaning that after affliction and judgment He ascended to the Father as a victor, or that the Judge of all did not find a just judgment, “but without any guilt the Messiah was condemned because of the disturbance of the Jews and by the agreement of Pilate” (blessed Jerome—Commentary on chapter 53 of the prophet Isaiah). In accordance with him, Saint Cyril of Alexandria also explains this place: so truly “in His humiliation His judgment was taken away”: for after He appeared to them submissive and in great confusion, they hastily pronounced their decision and judgment regarding Him. This is exactly how some judges act, who care little for precision and truth, but judge rather by appearance, but not by facts (see Commentary of St. Petersburg professor, p. 821). Therefore, from the sense of the holy paternal exegesis it turns out that the words of the prophet mentioned above speak of the absence of proper judgment over the Messiah, thanks to the abuses that His prejudiced judges allowed themselves, using His meekness and humility. The correctness of such an interpretation is confirmed by the Commentary of St. Petersburg professors also with a philological analysis of the text. “If the Hebrew—oseg—is understood in accordance with the usage of this word’s root, the verb aseag, in various places of Scripture (cf. 1 Sam 18:44; 2 Sam 4:24; Job 4:2; Job 12:15), then it should mean: ‘detention,’ and in combination with mischpath—‘judgment’—‘detention of the sentence,’ ‘protection.’ Thus, the meaning of the expression—meocer umimmischpat luccah—is such: ‘The Servant of the Lord was deprived of protection and proper judgment.’ As history of the trial of Christ the Savior shows, indeed, in its conduct the main conditions of proper judicial procedure according to the criminal law that was in force among the Jews were not fulfilled. The delay required by this law regarding the execution of a death sentence and permission for anyone who could say something in favor of the condemned to speak it, while a death sentence was being carried out over Christ the Savior, were not applied (Commentary of St. Petersburg professor, pp. 821–822). Such an understanding of this place is confirmed, apparently, by its New Testament parallel: “in His humiliation justice was denied Him” (Acts 8:33), that is, the unjust judgment over the Lord occurred in accommodation to the oppressed condition in which He found Himself. “Who could have imagined His future?” “This is perhaps the most difficult place in all of chapter 53 to interpret. It is first of all unclear here what is meant by the opposition of a new thought to the previous one (‘but’); the very subject of discourse—that ‘generation’ of which the text speaks—is enigmatic; finally, the connection of this place with the preceding and following context is completely unclear. The greatest difficulty is presented by determining the chief concept—the ‘generation’ of the Messiah, which no one can imagine. There exist many different assumptions about its explanation. Their diversity—according to the correct observation of learned commentators—is caused by the difference in understanding the Hebrew word—dor—‘generation,’ which has two basic meanings: rotation in time and rotation in space, so that according to the first meaning concrete concepts develop from it: period of life, race, generation (present—contemporaries, past—ancestors, future—descendants), and according to the second: dwelling place of a human being, his spirit, that is, body—his ancestors, that is, burial place (Commentary of St. Petersburg professor, p. 822). Duhm openly confesses that “from the many possible translations it is difficult to choose the correct one” (schwer wählen). The majority of exegetes, headed by the holy Fathers (blessed Jerome, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint John Chrysostom, and others), adheres to the first interpretation, that is, explains the word—dor in the sense of rotation in time, origin, generation, descendants. Some of the holy Fathers and some modern exegetes (Stier and Neilisch) interpret the word dor in the sense of “descendants,” understood, of course, in a spiritual sense, that is, “the race or generation of the children of God” (See more details about this in I. Grigoriev, who himself prefers this interpretation, p. 220–221). Others explain the word dor as a definition of “life” or, more precisely, “the duration of life” of the Messiah, which in the eyes of the majority of Jews was entirely a misunderstanding (Luther, Vitringa, Urwick). Finally, the majority of modern exegetes see here an indication of the generation contemporary to Jesus Christ, that is, His “contemporaries,” for the vast majority of whom everything that happened to Him was completely incomprehensible (Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Reuss, Giesebrecht, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Vlastov, and others). The second group of exegetes, adhering to the interpretation of the root sxh in the sense of indicating a place, is much smaller in number, but it also has authoritative names in its ranks. Thus, Knobel belongs to it, who quite fantastically sees in the word dor an indication of the “grave” of the Messiah, which, supposedly, no one knows. Duhm (Duhm) gives a more general sense to the word dor, as an indication of “place” in general. Finally, the authors of the commentary of the St. Petersburg Academy see here a more particular indication of the Most Pure “body” of the Savior, as the dwelling place of His spirit (See p. 823). The very multiplicity and diversity of the opinions cited is sufficient to speak of the contentiousness of the question and the obscurity of its solution. Not without reason does the author of one of the newest commentaries on the book of the prophet Isaiah, after a detailed review of all the cited interpretations, hopelessly remark that “none of these interpretations is satisfactory” (Condamin). Hence, in him, as in some other exegetes, even arose a guess, not devoid of wit: do we not have in this example some accidental corruption of the text; should not we replace the incomprehensible here word doro with a completely appropriate legal term in the discourse about judgment deboro, which means “cause, guilt” (2 Chr 19:6)? And then this entire verse is interpreted easily and clearly: “You have deprived Him of righteous judgment? But who among you knows the cause of this, who can name His guilt, worthy of such an awful sentence” (Condamin Le Livre d’Isaie, 321 p. Paris 1905). If, however, one must hold fast to the existing text (dor), then most in accordance with the context of the speech would be the interpretation of it in the sense of the divine “origin” of the Messiah, which was hidden from the eyes of His torturers (“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34)). “Who will speak of His generation? Of the glorious properties of His nature, when He is taken into custody and to trial, delivered to death? Who can think of or believe in the glory of His generation, seeing such His humiliation? Here (as in the entire chapter) the visible humiliation and the hidden glory of the Messiah’s Divine nature are contrasted, or the glorification of the human nature after suffering,” says the author of one of the best dissertations on the book of the prophet Isaiah, who in confirmation of his view makes successful references to many New Testament places (John 19:9; Mark 14:61-62), as well as to the testimony of Justin the Philosopher (hieromonk Thaddeus “Unity of the book of the prophet Isaiah,” p. 212–213, note Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra 1901). Thus, in conclusion of all this, we come to the conclusion that in the words of the prophet—“Who could have imagined His generation?”—is given a hidden contrast of the humiliating appearance and poor, obscure earthly origin of the Messiah (verses 2–3) to His actual, heavenly greatness, His eternal birth from the Father and His Divine dignity. Obviously, these words burst from the breast of the prophet as a kind of “lyrical” sigh of the believing soul, deeply struck by such a sharp discrepancy between the given fact (the life and teaching of the Messiah) and its human evaluation (His crucifixion for it). “For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of My people He received the punishment.” We consider the very best interpretation of these words to be understanding them in the sense of a response to the previous question; wherein first a brief and figurative answer is given, and then it is clarified. To the question posed above—“Who could have imagined His generation?”—the prophet himself responds: “no one, because this is proven not only by word, but by deed: throughout the earthly life of the Savior the vast majority of the Jews treated Him with contempt and arrogance, and consequently did not understand Him at all. The same complete lack of understanding was displayed by them at the most decisive moment, at the completion of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, in the fact that this unreasoning crowd, headed by its blind leaders, brought Him to crucifixion. It is precisely this last thought that is particularly emphasized by the expression standing here—‘For He was cut off from the land of the living’—more clearly rendered in the Seventy and the Slavonic as ‘His life was taken from the earth,’ indicating death in general, and violent death in particular.” The further words of the text—“for the transgression of My people He received the punishment”—give a repetition and clarification of the preceding thought—about the crucifixion of the Messiah. This parallelism of thoughts, which we encounter so often in the prophet Isaiah (as well as in many other biblical authors)—a necessary tribute to the laws of Hebrew poetry, in the verse-form of which the majority of his inspired speeches are written and, in particular, the great poem we are examining (Isa 52:13; Isa 53). By its thought, this phrase stands very close to the content of the fifth verse, but with a certain difference in that it more sharply emphasizes all the black ingratitude and all the extreme criminality of the Jewish people: that people who were chosen by God (“My people”) and for the transgressions of whom, first of all, Christ suffered, they themselves became the active executors of His death sentence, eagerly seeking it, even contrary to the desire of the Roman government (Pontius Pilate).

Isaiah 53:9. They appointed Him a grave with the wicked, but He was buried with a rich man, because He had done no sin, and there was no falsehood in His mouth. “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, but He was with a rich man in His death.” Both the reading itself and the understanding of this place have many different versions, leading almost to the opposite. We think that preference should be given to that which does not contradict philology and most corresponds to the context of the speech. Having spoken in the preceding verses about the suffering (7) and death (8) of the Messiah, the prophet now consistently turns to speaking of His burial. Here he gives a powerful, artistic antithesis—the wicked designs of the Jews, on the one hand, and the Divine glorification of the Messiah, on the other. The boundless malice of the enemies of the Messiah was prepared to persecute Him even after death: this found expression in the fact that He, as a person condemned to religious and political crime, was prepared for shameful burial. Maimonides, for instance, writes that “those punished by death were not buried together with their ancestors; two places were set aside for them: one for those stoned and burned, another for those beheaded and hanged.” Josephus also testifies: “he who blasphemed was stoned, hung for a day, and buried without any honor.” Something similar, only probably with even greater indignity, was prepared by the Jewish authorities for the Innocent Messiah murdered by them. But it pleased the providence of God to prevent this shame, and the fact of the burial of the Messiah, instead of becoming a means of new humiliation, became the beginning of His glorification. Here one cannot help but see a prophetic hint at that well-known historical fact how the rich man of Arimathea comes to Pilate and asks of him the pure Body and buries it with great honor (Matt 27:57; Luke 23:50-52). Consequently, there is no need to resort to devices in order to distort the direct and clear meaning of the words “wicked” (impious, evildoer) and “rich” (noble, possessing material means), as many rationalist exegetes do, distorting even the concept of “rich” in a negative sense. The entire force of this comparison, obviously, lies in the opposition between the shameful burial of a criminal and the honorable funeral of a distinguished and respected man. The end of verse 9 “although He had done no violence, and there was no deceit in His mouth”—gives a beautiful explanation of the fact set forth above. In the eyes of an orthodox Jew, the honorable burial of Christ could have seemed a deviation from the law, by which all criminals were deprived not only of honorable, but even of ordinary burial. With the Messiah it will be done the opposite, and this is because, as the prophet explains, He is not a criminal or transgressor at all, but the One true and sinless being. This phrase also decisively refutes all suspicions and slanders against the Messiah, that since He suffered, He was consequently guilty. The prophet has already said many times above that if the Messenger of God indeed suffered, it was exclusively for others’ sins (5); here he speaks even more directly, that He had no sins of His own at all, not only in deed, but even in word. In this respect the Messiah stands out sharply from among all people, among whom there is not one who is free from sin (Isa 64:6; Ps 34:5-6). Not without reason did many, both He Himself and His disciples, point with special force to this trait of the Divine dignity of the Savior of the world (John 8:46; 1 Pet 2:22; 2 Cor 5:21 and others).

Isaiah 53:10. But it pleased the Lord to strike Him, and He gave Him over to suffering; and when His soul offers a sacrifice of propitiation, He shall see a long-lived posterity, and the will of the Lord shall be carried out successfully by His hand. Verses 10–11, representing as it were a concluding conclusion from the entire chapter, reveal to us the inner, deepest meaning of the crucifixion of the Messiah and its saving fruit. “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush Him with pain.” Again, a clear answer to the chief perplexity of the Jews—about the death of an innocent sufferer. According to the false Jewish understanding, there is no innocent suffering, since God would never permit it. Exposing this delusion regarding the Messiah, the prophet says that in this case we have an exception, that the sufferings and death of this Innocent One occurred not contrary to the will of His Heavenly Father, but in complete accordance with it (Acts 2:23; Phil 2:6-7; Col 1:19-20). In the Slavonic and in the Seventy the thought is expressed somewhat differently and perhaps even more clearly: “The Lord wills to purify Him from the wound.” The majority of commentators on this text establish its immediate connection with the end of verse 6, where it was said that the Lord laid on Him the iniquities of all people. This very burden of universal worldly sin and constituted the “wound” or “sickness” for which the Messiah had to make a redemptive sacrifice in the form of crucifixion. The crucifixion to the cross, the wound of worldly sin, lost its power and made it possible for spiritual and moral healing for all who come into communion with this blessed source of healing, as was beautifully explained above: “the punishment that made us whole was upon Him, and by His bruises we are healed” (verse 5). And therein lies the very deepest mystery of redemption: that an Innocent One suffers for the guilty so as to open for them a source of justification. “When you make His life an offering for sin.” In the Seventy instead of the words “offering for sin” stands περι ᾿αμαρτιας, which in Slavonic is translated—“concerning sin.” The term used in the Hebrew text—asam—according to the opinion of Hebraists, literally should be translated as: guilt-offering, which is closer to the offering for sin. The characteristics and ritual of this offering are discussed in detail in the book of Leviticus (Lev 5:1-19; Lev 7:1-9). “The basic idea of the guilt-offering—asam—is satisfactio, or the satisfaction of violated rights (in the broad sense of the concept). The idea of satisfaction here is created by the requirement of divine justice, and the idea of redemption flows from the fact of punishment, inseparable from transgression.” (I. Grigoriev—p. 228, note). Thus, here a very important additional detail is given, that the redemptive death of the Messiah had a propitiatory character with respect to the highest Divine Justice: “Mercy and truth will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other” (Ps. 84:10). “He shall see His offspring and shall prolong His days; through Him the will of the Lord shall prosper.” When the Lord Jesus Christ accomplishes His great redemptive mission and thereby gives sufficient satisfaction to the Justice of God, He will thereby open for us again the possibility of obtaining many and abundant blessings from the heavenly Father. To express this last thought, the prophet uses an image most understandable and sympathetic to the Old Testament Jew. And for him, as we know, one of the highest blessings was numerous and prolonged posterity, which is why all the patriarchal promises are primarily concentrated on this very point (Gen 13:16; Gen 15:5; Gen 17:5-6; Gen 22:17; Gen 28; and others). With respect to the Messiah, this promise has a special significance—it indicates not fleshly, but spiritual posterity, that is, the future confessors of Christianity, of whom the evangelist John the Theologian writes that the Lord “gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Not less expressively does the Psalmist speak of Him in one of the messianic psalms: “His descendants will serve Him; it will be told of the Lord to the coming generation” (Ps 21:31). Finally, about that same “spiritual Zion,” “born of God” and about its worldwide spread the prophet Isaiah has already spoken more than once (Isa 54:1; Isa 49:21; Isa 44:28; Isa 42:1; Isa 45; and others). The Messiah Himself “will see” this long-lived seed and will be, with respect to it, its constant guide and conductor of Divine will. And since it was said above about the death and burial of the Son of God, it is clear that here implicite His glorious resurrection from the dead and His kingly sitting at the right hand of God the Father are meant. And all this—such traits of the Messiah which do not apply absolutely to anyone except the Son of God. One should note that the words of the text: “He shall see His offspring,” from Hebrew are translated somewhat differently, more in accordance with our commentary: He will see His seed, will be long-lived (Jerome Thaddeus—214).

Isaiah 53:11. He shall look with satisfaction upon the travail of His soul; through the knowledge of Him, He, the Righteous One, My Servant, shall justify many, and shall bear their sins upon Himself. “Out of the labor of His soul He shall see light and be satisfied.” In the Seventy and in Slavonic, the beginning of this verse reads completely differently: “And the Lord wishes by His hand to remove the pain from His soul, to show Him the light.” In explaining such an essential difference, some Hebraists find that our Russian translation is not precise enough and that it is more correct to translate from the Hebrew as: “freed from toil” (Gesenius), or “by reason of toil (labor) of His soul, He will see satisfaction” (Jerome Thaddeus). With such a translation, the connection of the Russian text with the Slavonic becomes closer and clearer: in both, evidently, the same thing is spoken of, namely that for the Messiah, after the painful moment of temporary humiliation, there will come eternal satisfaction, that is, complete and high moral satisfaction. The difference is that the Russian text illuminates the matter from a subjective side (speaks of the internal self-feeling of the Messiah), while the Slavonic—from an objective side (points to the external source of His vindication and glorification). However, both translations fully correspond to the context of the speech, where just before this it was also spoken about reward for the labor of the Messiah (verse 10). “By knowledge of Himself My righteous Servant shall make many righteous.” Under “knowledge” (Hebrew daet), or “understanding” (Greek επιγνωσις), here is meant, as most direct, the immediate knowledge of God in general (“The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him” (John 1:18)), as well as penetration into the depths of the mystery of the Divine plan of salvation for the human race (Matt 11:27; John 10; and others). The thought that the Son of the Lord carried out the will of the One who sent Him the Father willingly, willingly, and with full consciousness of its significance and power, has been unfolded many times in different images in the prophet Isaiah before, especially in the image of an obedient and attentive disciple (Isa 50:4-5). “He... shall make many righteous.” It is not said all, but only many, just as before: “so shall He startle many nations” (Isa 52:15). Obviously, because although the possibility of justification and salvation through communion with the fruit of the redemptive death of the Lord is now opened to all, yet far not all will make use of it, but only those who have strong faith and a free inner attraction to Divine grace (Rom 5:19). It is worthy of special note that God Himself calls His Son here a Righteous One, which destroys the last possibility of doubt in the personal righteousness of the Suffering Messiah, which, as we know, disturbed the Jews more than anything else. And Judas the betrayer confesses this: “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt 27:4), and Pilate’s wife says: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man” (Matt 27:19). One must note that He is justified not so that, out of the unrighteous, He might become righteous... the righteous is justified... so that it might be revealed to all what He was,” says blessed Jerome, commenting on this verse.

Isaiah 53:12. Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. It represents the solemn conclusion to the entire chapter 53. In order to give it greater solemnity and power, the Lord Himself appears as the speaker here, crowning His faithful Son with rich reward as the victor over His enemies and the accurate executor of His Divine will. “Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong.” Here, according to the laws of Hebrew meter, the same thought about the victorious reward of the Messiah is repeated twice. “The Innocent suffering Servant, by the final results of his activity, is compared with mighty rulers, or as the following expression shows, with worldwide conquerors of kingdoms. In this comparison, to the minds of readers of Isaiah’s prophecies, especially chapters 35–46, the image of the Persian Cyrus should certainly have come.” (I. Grigoriev—p. 232). One cannot help but compare this with the end of the preceding chapter 52, where it was also said that in silent awe nations will be astounded at the greatness of the Messiah’s work (verse 15). This very image of comparative juxtaposition with earthly kings and their kingdoms gives the thought of the triumphant Messiah as also a king, standing at the head of a special spiritual kingdom, that is, the Church of Christ, which by idea should be the realization of the “kingdom of God on earth.” There exists, however, another, philologically even more precise translation of the phrase: I will give Him many as a portion and the mighty He will divide as spoil. In such a rendering, the thought of the kingly greatness and superiority of the Messiah over earthly rulers comes out even more clearly: kings rule ordinary simple people, but the Messiah will rule over the kings themselves. “Because He poured out Himself to death... bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” Here once more, under the sanction of Divine authority, the essence of the redemptive sacrifice is revealed, which served as the cause of the reward mentioned above. He “poured out,” or as Bishop Peter translated—“shed” “Himself to death,” seeing in this a hint of crucifixion. “This metaphorical expression is taken from animals which, being slaughtered for offering as sacrifice, together with their blood poured out their soul, contained in the blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11). The Savior also speaks of Himself, that He came to give His soul as a ransom for many” (John 10:11—Bishop Peter). The last expression, “made intercession for the transgressors,” especially clearly emphasizes the meaning of the expiatory sacrifice of an innocent sufferer for sinful humanity. At the same time, this is perhaps the clearest of Old Testament places indicating the “Advocate” of the New Testament. “And was numbered with the transgressors.” According to the testimony of the evangelists Mark and Luke, the Lord Himself, hanging on the cross, applied this prophecy to Himself (Mark 15:27; Luke 22:37), evidently, either in the general sense—to define His shameful execution, or even in a more particular sense—to point to His crucifixion “between two thieves” (Matt 27:44). The great prophetic speech we have examined (Isa 52:13; Isa 53), being in the closest connection with the preceding messianic sections of the book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 42:1-4; Isa 49:1-6; Isa 50:4-9), is the crown and completion of all of them, where the personality of the first suffering, and then glorified Son of God comes forth with the utmost clarity and power. In chapter 53—according to the just remark of learned commentators—the prophetic vision of the prophet Isaiah reaches its zenith. Here with such clarity the suffering and condemnation to death, the very death, burial, and glorification of Christ the Savior are depicted that if there is anywhere, then precisely in the prophecy of this chapter, the prophet Isaiah, according to the word of blessed Jerome, is “magis evangelista” (“more an evangelist”), “quam propheta” (“than a prophet”)—St. Petersburg professors. Given the special clarity and precision of the messianic character of the prophecies of chapter 53, on the part of rationalist criticism there has been and continues to be no lack of attempts at negative exegesis. However, the clear meaning of the prophecy, its kinship with others, and the profound antiquity of references to it in Jewish and Christian literature almost entirely prevented critics from using their favorite method—denying the authenticity of the origin of this prophecy. Only a comparatively very few from among little-known Protestant critics ventured to do this (Schian, Kosters, etc.), and they encountered a united opposition even among their fellow thinkers (See the special monograph by E. Sellin “Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde” “Der Knecht Gottes bei Deuterojesaia”). In recent times, in defense of the authenticity of this prophecy, in addition to all previous arguments, a new one has been put forward, enjoying great weight among scholars investigating Hebrew texts. It is based on a detailed analysis of the text of the entire speech in question (Isa 52:13—Isa 53), as a result of which it becomes clear that this entire speech represents a single poem (a prophetic song) which, according to the laws of Hebrew verse, naturally divides into five following stanzas: Isa 52:13-15 (1st stanza), Isa 53:1-3 (2nd stanza), Isa 53:4-6 (3rd stanza), Isa 53:7-9 (4th stanza), Isa 53:10-12 (5th stanza), of which two symmetrical stanzas at the beginning, one intermediate in the middle, and again two symmetrical ones at the end. “But once the division of the poem into stanzas and the symmetry of the stanzas has been established, the authenticity of this section and its relationship to the Messiah become an indisputable fact” (A. Condamin Op. cit. 323 and 331 p.) The impossibility of denying the speeches of the prophet Isaiah about the ‘Messiah’ turned all the efforts of rationalist criticism toward seeking some possibility of their reinterpretation. The initiative in this respect belongs to medieval Jewish rabbis, to whom it was painful to acknowledge that this prophecy (chapter 53) has a messianic meaning and thus see in it a powerful exposure of their disbelief. And so the learned Hebrew rabbi—Aben-Ezra († 1150) is perhaps the first to put forth the theory of the so-called “collective” understanding of the personality of the Messiah, seeing here the depiction of the sufferings of the entire Jewish people. The hypothesis of Aben-Ezra was supported by the rabbis Rashi and Kimhi, and from modern ones it is held by Hitzig, Reuss, Gelbrecht, Budde, Marti, Rau, Eichhorn, Kosters, and others. A certain variant of this hypothesis is another one close to it, understanding by the ‘Messiah’ not historical Israel in general, but abstract, ideal Israel, as it should be, in accordance with its calling (Bleek, Ewald, and others). To the same group of “collectivist” hypotheses belong two others as well, of which one sees in the suffering Messenger of God an indication of the suffering of Old Testament righteous ones (Paulus, Maurer, Knobel, Kohn, and others), while the other—the “institution of Old Testament prophets” (Gesenius, De Bemme, Umbreit, Schenkel, Hoffmann, and others). But the inconsistency and arbitrariness of all these “collectivist” reinterpretations is clear from the analysis of the text, and we have already said enough about it in its proper place. The hopelessness of such a view is apparently clearly recognized by negative criticism itself, which more and more begins to abandon the ground of “collectivist” understanding and move to the ground of “individualistic” interpretation of the Messiah’s personality. But here we encounter, perhaps, even greater disagreement of opinion: some refer this prophecy to Jeremiah (rabbi Saadiah, Grotius, Seidel), others—to King Josiah (rabbi Abarbanel, Augusti), third—to the pious King Hezekiah (Bardny, Konigsberg), fourth—to the prophet Isaiah himself (Steidlin), fifth—to some outstanding martyr from the era of King Manasseh (Ewald), and others to David, Zerubbabel, the martyr Eleazar, and so forth and so forth. The very multiplicity and inconsistency of the opinions cited best of all reveal their groundlessness and arbitrariness. “In chapters Isa 52—Isa 53 the ‘Messenger of God’ is so clearly depicted as an actual Personality that to see here a mere personification of an ideal righteous one would mean to give the place a sort of abstract and remote sense instead of the direct and immediately apparent one—and that without sufficient grounds in the context and with many insoluble difficulties” (Jerome Thaddeus, Cited work, p. 284–285). In contrast to the inconsistency and instability of rationalist hypotheses, the Orthodox-Christian understanding of this speech, apart from its analysis and context, has a series of weighty external evidence in its favor. First of all, this includes numerous and strong quotations from the Talmud and Midrashes, leaving no doubt in their view of the messianic character of chapter 53 (See excerpts from them in I. Grigoriev “Cited work”, pp. 197–198). Then, directly adjacent to this are numerous holy Patristic commentaries, beginning with Justin the Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons and ending with John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine (See p. 197–202). Finally, it is not without serious significance that such a view is shared not only by all orthodox exegetes, among whom there are many people with prominent names (Hensler, Michaelis, Hefernich, Stier, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Reink, Delitzsch, Knabenbauer), but also by very many of the free-thinking Protestant theologians (Dillmann, Duhm, Davidson, Driver, G. A. Smith, Kirkpatrick, Skinner, and others). Even those scholars who defend the “collectivist” understanding of the Messiah sometimes agree to recognize the literal, historical sense as also having a prophetic messianic significance. “The work and mission of Christ, as Teacher, Prophet, Example, and Sacrifice, unites in Himself all that Israel was only partially and imperfectly” (Driver). “All that is depicted here under the appearance of the pious portion of Israel, or a holy martyr, the realization of all this the Christian Church had the right to find in the personality of Jesus Christ” (G. A. Smith). Even Renan found here “hints, as if anticipated in Jesus.” And the author of one of the newest popular negative translated books directly calls the author of this speech the “Great Anonymous” and places him on par with the New Testament evangelists (Sunderland “Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament” 1907). After all this, it is not surprising that orthodox exegesis recognizes this prophecy as the greatest and is ready to consider it as it were written at the foot of Golgotha. (F. Delitzsch). * * * In the Slavonic translation from the Seventy—“Like a root from parched earth.” Editor’s note. In the Slavonic translation from the Seventy—“In His humiliation His judgment was taken away.” Editor’s note. The mention of the rich man who assisted in the burial—and prophecy, confirmed by evangelical events. Editor’s note. And indeed, from the perspective of an orthodox Jew, if the Lord providentially arranged the burial of the Messiah through the mediation of a rich and respected man, in a worthy place—a completely unambiguous indication of the innocence of the Crucified One! Editor’s note. In the Slavonic text there is no mention of the Servant—“may he see light and create understanding, justify the Righteous One who serves well for many, and He shall bear their sins.” Editor’s note. Here it coincides in meaning with the Slavonic translation: “For this reason He will inherit many, and the mighty He will divide as spoil.” Editor’s note.