« PreviousContinue »
But it may be said, though here be the matter of punishment, yet
may be all this was for some other end; and so it may be it was νουθεσία, or δοκιμασία, or παιδεία, not τιμωρία, or punishment properly so called.
Consider, then, the ends of punishment before insisted on, and see what of them is applicable to the transaction between God and Christ here mentioned.
1. Was it for his own correction ? No; says the prophet, verse 9, “He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." He was perfectly innocent, so that he had no need of any chastisement for his amendment. And so signally in sundry places, where mention is made of the death of Christ, his own spotless innocency is often pleaded.
2. Neither was it for his instruction, that he might be wise and instructed in the will of God; for at the very entrance of the prophecy, chap. lii. 13, he says he shall “deal prudently, and be exalted.” He was faithful before in all things. And though he experimentally learned obedience by his sufferings, yet habitually to the utmost his ears were bored, and himself prepared to the will of God, before the afflictions here principally intended. Neither,
3. Was he rapádelyna, punished for example, to be made an example to others that they might not offend; for what can offenders learn from the punishment of one who never offended? cut off, but not for himself,” Dan. ix. 26. And the end assigned, verse 11, which is not the instruction only, but the justification and salvation of others, will not allow this end: “He shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities." He set us an example in his obedience, but he was not punished for an example. Neither,
4. Was it mapoupía, a suffering to bear witness and testimony to the truth. There is no mention of any such end in this place; yea, to make that the main intendment here is a monstrous figment. The expressions all along, as we shall see in the next place, are, that all this was "for our transgressions, for our sins, for our iniquities, for our peace.” God wounded, bruised, killed him, for our iniquities; that is, he died to bear witness to his doctrine! “Credat Apella.” "
Then, the matter of punishment being expressed, see the cause of the infliction of it. It was for '" transgressions,” for “ iniquities,” verse 5; for wandering and“ iniquity," verse 6; for “transgression, " verse 8; for “sin,” verse 12. Let us now remember the general description of punishment that was given at the beginning,—it is
malum passionis quod infligitur ob malum actionis,”—and see how directly it suits with this punishment of Jesus Christ: first, Here is “malum passionis” inflicted, wounding, bruising, killing; and, secondly, There is “malum actionis” deserving, sin, iniquity, and transgression. How these met on an innocent person shall be after
“ He was
ward declared. Go we along to the peculiar description of punishment properly so called, as managed by God,-it is “vindicta noxæ.” Now, if all other ends and causes whatever, as of chastisement for example, etc., be removed, and this only be asserted, then this affliction of Christ was "vindicta noxæ,” punishment in the most proper sense; but that these ends are so removed hath been declared
particular consideration of them.
And this is the first argument from this place to prove that the death of Christ and his suffering have the nature of punishment.
The second is from the more particular expressions of it to this purpose, both on the part of the person punishing and on the part of the person punished. A single expression on each part may be insisted on :
1. On the part of God punishing, take that of verse 6, “The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;" of which sort also is that of verse 10, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” etc.
2. On the part of him punished, verse 11, “He shall bear their iniquities." From the consideration of these expressions we shall evidently evince what we have proposed. Of these in the next chapter.
Some particular testimonies evincing the death of Christ to be a punishment,
properly so called.
The two expressions that I chose in particular to consider are nextly to be insisted on.
The first relates to him who did inflict the punishment; the other to him that was punished. The first is in verse 6, "The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The person punishing is Jehovah, the person punished called “him,"—that is, he who is spoken of throughout the whole prophecy, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, as above declared.
For the opening of the words, that the efficacy of them to our purpose in hand may appear, two of them are especially to be considered: First, What is meant by that which is rendered "laid on him;" secondly, What is meant by “ iquity.”
The first by our translation is rendered in the margin, “made to meet:” “He made to meet on him the iniquities of us all.” The Vulgar Latin,“ Posuit Dominus in eo,”—“The LORD put upon him," according to our translation in the text. Montanus, “Dominus fecit occurrere in eum,"_“God hath caused to meet on him," according to our translation in the margin. Junius to the same pur
pose, “ Jehovah fecit ut incurrat,"_" The LORD made them meet
, and fall on him." The LXX, render it, Kal Kúpros Tapiowxay auron Tais ágapríais mwv,—"The LORD delivered him to our sins," that is, to be punished for them. By others the word is rendered “impegit, traduxit, conjecit,”—all to the same purpose, importing an act of God in conveying our sins to Christ.
The word here used is yapy; its root is Yip, to which all the significations mentioned are assigned, “occurrere, obviam ire, incurrere, aggredi, rogare, precari.”
1. The first general signification of it is “to meet,” as the bounds of a field, or country, or house, meet with one another: Joshua xix. 34, 12:a yapy; so all along in that chapter, where the bounds of one country are said to reach to another, that is, to meet with them. It is the word here used. So in voluntary agents it is “obviam ire,” or “to meet," and that either for good or evil. For good it is spoken of God, Isa. Ixiv. 5, “ Thou meetest him," etc.; and so for evil, Amos v. 19, “ As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him,” jy???,—that is, to tear him in pieces. Hence, because men that met others went to them to desire some help of them, the word also signifies “to ask, to pray, entreat, or intercede:” so the word is used, Isa. lix. 16, “There was no entreater," papa,-none to meet, to come and ask; and in this very chapter, verse 12, “He made inter
s cession for the transgressors.” The word is the same with that here used. To meet the Lord, and intercede for transgressors, to stay his hand against them, is its sense. 2. “To meet,” or “to make to meet” properly, which is the first
" and most clear sense of the word. It is often used for to meet “animo hostili,” to meet, to fall upon, for hurt. 1 Sam. xxij
. 17, “The servants of the king would not put forth their hand yip, to meet,” that is, as we have translated it, to “fall upon the priests” and kill them. So 2 Sam. i. 15, David bade his young man arise, yap, “fall upon". the Amalekite, -that is, to kill him. Samson made the men of Judah swear that they would not MVADA, “ meet with him," or fall on him, themselves, Judges xv. 12.
Nextly, it may be inquired in what sense the word is here used, whether in the first spoken of, “to ask, entreat, intercede;" or in the latter, "to meet," or "to meet with.”
Grotius interpreteth it (to remove so much of his interpretation by the way), “ Permisit Deus, ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignissima pateretur,” that so he might suit what is spoken to Jeremiah, without pretence or colour of proof. For the word, it is forty-six times used in the Old Testament, and if in any one of them it may be truly rendered “permisit,” as it is done by him, or to that sense, let it be here so applied also. And for that sense (which is, that God suffered the Jews by their wickedness to entreat him evilly), it is
most remote from the intendment of the words, and the Holy Ghost in them.
First, then, that the words cannot be interpreted “to pray or intercede” is evident from the contexture, wherein it is said (in this sense), “ He prayed him for the iniquity of us all;" that is, the LORD prayed Christ for the iniquities of us all. This sense of the word Y???, in this place, Socinus himself grants not to be proper nor consistent: “Porro significatio illa, precari, in loco nostro locum habere non potest; alioqui sequeretur Esaiam voluisse dicere, Deum fecisse, ut omnium nostrûm iniquitas per Christum, vel pro Christo precata fuerit, quod longe absurdissimum esse nemo non videt," Cap. xxi. p. 132, Pralec. Socin.
It is, then, “to meet.” Now, the word here used being in hiphil, which makes a double action of that expressed, by adding the cause by whose power, virtue, and impress the thing is done, thence it is here rendered “occurrere fecit,”—“ he made to meet." And so the sense of it is, “God made our sins, as it were, to set upon or to fall upon
Jesus Christ;" which is the most common use of the word, as hath been showed.
It is objected that the word signifies to meet, yet no more but this may be the meaning of them, “God in Christ met with all our iniquities;” that is, for their pardoning, and removal, and taking away.
Of the many things that may be given in for the eversion of this gloss I shall name only two, whereof the first is to the word, the latter to the matter. For the word, the conjugation, according to the common rule, enforces the sense formerly mentioned: he made to meet, and not he met. Secondly, The prophet in these words renders a reason of the contemptible, sad condition of the Messiah, at which so many were scandalized, and whereupon so few believed the report of the gospel concerning him; and this is, that God laid on him our iniquities. Now, there is no reason why he should be represented in so deplorable a state and condition if God only met with and prevented our sin in and by him; which he did (as they say) in his resurrection, wherein he was exceeding glorious. So that the meaning of the word is, that God made our sins to meet on him by laying them on him; and this sense Socinus himself consents unto, ' Prælec. cap. xxi. p. 133. But this also will farther appear in the
. explication of the next word, and that is “our iniquity."
Secondly, “ The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” siz.. How the iniquity of us? That is, the punishment of our iniquity. I shall offer three things to make good this interpretation:
1. That the word is often found in that sense, so that it is no new or uncouth thing that here it should be so: Gen. iv. 13, piy, “Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear;" it is the same word here used. They are the words of Cain, upon the denunciation of God's judgment on him; and what iniquity it is he gives you an account in the next words, “ Behold, thou hast driven me out,” verse 14. That was only the punishment laid on him. It is used in like manner several times, Lev. xx. 17, 19; 1 Sam. xxvii. 10, Saul sware to the witch that no iniquity should befall her,—that is, no punishment for that which she did at his command, in raising up a spirit to consult withal, contrary to the law; and also in sundry other places: so that this is no new signification of the word, and is here most proper.
2. It appears from the explication that is given of this thing in many other expressions in the chapter: "The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” How? In that "it pleased him to bruise him, and put him to grief,” verse 10; in that he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities,” verse 5; as will be made more evident when I come to the next phrase, “ He shall bear their iniquities,” which answers to this, "He laid them on him."
“ 3. Because he did so lay our sin on Christ that “he made his soul an offering for sin.” When our iniquities were on him,“his soul" (that is, he himself, by a usual synecdoche, the soul for the person)" was made ous, an offering for sin.” The word here used is like “piaculum” in Latin; which signifies the fault, and him who is punished for it in a way of a public sacrifice. So is this word taken both for a sin, a trespass, and a sacrifice for the expiation of it, as another word, nainely, Non, is used also, Lev. iv. 3, “He shall offer it nxon, for a sin," that is, an offering for sin. So also Exod. xxix. 14, Lev. iv. 29. And this very word is so used, Lev. vii. 2, “They shall kill Dux;" that is, the sin, or sin-offering, or“ trespass-offering," as there it is rendered. And other instances might be given. Now, God did so cause our iniquities to meet on Christ that he then under them made himself bus, or "an offering for sin.” Now, in the offering for sin the penalty of the offence was, “suo more,” laid on the beast that was sacrificed or made an offering. Paul interpreteth these words by other expressions: 2 Cor. v. 21, “ He made him to be a sin for us;" that is, an offering for sin, bug. He made him sin when he made him "a curse, the curse of the law," Gal. iii. 13; that is, gave him up to the punishment by the law due to sin. Rom. viii. 3, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” xal topl duaprías, for sin, a sacrifice for sin, "condemned sin in the flesh.” pecprius Ηeb. X. 6, “Ολοκαυτώματα και περί αμαρτίας ουκ ευδόκησας, “In burntofferings and for sin thou hast had no pleasure;" and again, 071 Juriav και προσφοράς και ολοκαυτώματα και περί αμαρτίας, verse 8.
It appears, then, from all that hath been said, that our iniquities that were laid on Christ were the punishment due to our iniquity.
Farther to clear this, I shall a little consider what act of God this was whereby he laid our iniquities on Christ; and these two things