SATISFIED
48
`He hath no form nor comeliness'.- `Form' has already appeared in Isaiah 52:14; there it was `more marred' than the
sons of men, here it is described as being devoid of `comeliness'. This is too homely a translation; `excellency' (Isa.
35:2), `majesty' (Psa. 45:3), `honour' (Psa. 145:5), `glory' (Isa. 2:10), or `beauty' (Psa. 110:3) would be a more
fitting translation. At His second coming the verb is used of His appearance,
`Who is ... this that is glorious in His apparel' (Isa. 63:1).
yet, at His first advent, His people saw neither honour, glory, majesty, nor beauty.
`No beauty that we should desire Him'.- We have already considered under `visage' (Isa. 52:14), the meaning and
usage of the word here translated `beauty'.
The Messiah is given the title `The desire of all nations' (Hag. 2:7), but this again is at His second coming (see
context).
Contrariwise, upon Saul - the people's choice, the persecutor of David and the rejected of the Lord - this title
was laid `On whom is all the desire of Israel?' (1 Sam. 9:20).
`He is despised (see also Psa. 22:6) and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted (the "knowledge" of
Isa. 53:11) with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from Him' (A.V.). `He hid as it were His face from us'
(A.V. and R.V. margins). `As an hiding of faces from Him' or `from us' (A.V. margin). `As one from whom
men hide their face' (R.V.).
It will be seen that owing to the ambiguity of the sentence the translators have experienced some difficulty in
interpreting this last clause. G. A. Smith gives:
`And as one we do cover the face from',
while the LXX reads,
`For His face is turned from us'.
The reader will remember the allusions to leprosy in earlier comments. We believe that the same dread thing is
in view here. The Saviour was regarded as `unclean'. He Who was the brightness of the Father's glory, so
identified Himself with His people's sin and shame, that there was `an hiding of faces', and He Who ever was `holy,
harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners' was separated by them from their company and treated as a leper.
The following is a confirmation of this interpretation from a note taken from the Talmud where it asks, `What is
the name of the Messias? One answer is that `Some say hatsara, "The Leprous", according as it is written, "Surely
He hath borne our sicknesses"`.
`CHRIST ... SUFFERED ... THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST'
We now approach the revealed results of this tremendous burden of suffering and transgressions, and read,
`The chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed' (Isa. 53:5).
First let us consider the teaching contained in the words: `The chastisement of our peace was upon Him'. This
cannot mean that `our peace' was `chastised', but that the chastisement was `upon Him'. The reader is doubtless
aware that the word `of', which is the sign of the genitive case, is not necessarily limited to the `possessive',
although this is the first and most frequent meaning. The phrase `smitten of God' can mean nothing else than
`smitten by God', which is an example of the genitive of efficient cause. So also is the phrase `chastisement of our
peace', which means not only the chastisement that procures our peace, but, as the context reveals, a chastisement
endured by the Lord on behalf of His people.
So in the passages before us we observe two parallel lines of suffering:
Acquainted with and bearing
Wounded
for
grief.
transgressions.
Carrying sorrows.
Bruised for iniquities.