Page images
PDF
EPUB

" be raised up the third day." "Ought not Christ " to have suffered these things, and to enter into "his glory ?"ו

The portion of scripture, of which part was before considered, must now be proceeded with. When any man attentively reads the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah; the question almost irresistibly forces itself upon him: "Of whom speaketh the "prophet this? of himself, or of some other man ?"2 I do not know that the prophet was ever supposed to have spoken of himself: so it is needless to dwell on the absurdity of such a supposition. Nor does it appear that any individual has been pointed out in whom the prophecy was, or will be, ful

filled.

Extracts are given by Dr. Whitby, on the eighth chapter of Acts, from ancient Jewish writers, maintaining, that the prophecy relates to the Messiah: but modern Jews do not admit this, and cannot be supposed to do it. We only request to know, of whom, or of what company, or of what transactions, it is either a prediction or a history? As a part of "the oracles of God committed to" the Jewish people, and owned by them to be the 'word of God;' it must have some important meaning, and we would gladly be informed what they suppose that meaning to be? When this is fairly and clearly stated, I trust learned Christians will give it a candid and impartial consideration. But we do not live in an age, in which silence and imposed restraints, on such a subject, will produce any other effect than a conclusion in the minds of men in general, that the Jews are conscious of being totally unable to disprove the Christian interpretation of the prophecy? though determined not to accede to it.

'Luke ix. 22. xxiv. 25-27.44-47.

2 Acts viii. 34.

Some writers, as I recollect, have, in a general and indefinite way, asserted that the nation of Israel was intended, and not any individual: but it is almost self-evident that this interpretation cannot be maintained, or even rendered plausible, by any genius or learning of man. Let us, however, proceed to examine some parts of it."Surely he hath "borne our griefs, and carried " our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, "smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was "wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised " for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace

66

was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have "turned every one to his own way, and the Lord "hath laid" (or, caused to meet) upon him the "iniquities of us all." 1 It is undeniable that in these verses the writer speaks of many sinning, and exposed to suffering, and of one as suffering for their sins; and that, by his suffering the punishment which they had deserved, they are delivered and healed. Now, if the nation of Israel be the sufferer, considered as one person; who are they for whose transgressions Israel was wounded and bruised? Such language can never mean, that Israel suffered for his own sins; nor, that one generation of Israel suffered for the sins of other

[ocr errors][merged small]

generations; because their sufferings could not be "the chastisement of their peace," or avail for "the healing of former generations."-And what generation of Israel ever suffered for the sins of their fathers, being themselves innocent and deserving no sufferings? Neither will it be allowed by the Jews themselves, that Israel suffered for the sins, and in order to the salvation, of the gentiles, or of any part of them. In short, it does not appear that any meaning, even specious meaning, can be given to the passage, except by supposing Israel, or some other collective body, confessing their guilt, and speaking of some individual, who suffered the punishment due to them, in order that they might be. pardoned and saved. Supposing the prophet, for argument's sake, (I do not adduce it as authority,) to mean the company, of whom St. John speaks in the Revelation, who say to "the Lamb that had "been slain," "Thou hast redeemed us to God "with thy blood, out of every kindred, and "tongue, and people, and nation:" suppose the prophet, I say, to mean this company, and himself as one of it, when he says, "All we, like " sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every " one to his own way; and JEHOVAH has made "to meet on him the iniquities of us all: " can any other interpretation be adduced, which will bear a competition with this? In Isaiah is a lock, the wards of which are so intricate that no key can be found to open it: till at length one is brought from the apostle John, which with perfect ease opens it, at the first touch. Was not this the key originally intended for that lock?

[ocr errors]

1

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted:" (more exactly, "It was exacted, and he became "answerable:") "He was led as a lamb to the " slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is "dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was "taken from prison and from judgment; and "who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living." Here the person, who was "bruised for the iniquities" of the company spoken of, of whom their " debt was "exacted and he became answerable," is represented as suffering in meekness, patience, and silence, and not murmuring or complaining; though hurried to execution without judgment, and without any one to appear in his behalf; and not only as suffering grievously in other respects, but as "cut off from the land of the living:" " for "the transgression of my people was he stricken." If the Messiah be intended, it is manifest that he was not only to be a sufferer, a meek, harmless, and patient sufferer, under oppression and iniquity; but to die also, and by a violent death, as paying a debt, which he did not contract; as "stricken for the transgression" of that people whom the prophet, or Almighty God, owns as his people. Who can help, in this connexion, recollecting the language of Gabriel to Daniel; "Messiah the Prince shall be cut off, but not "for himself?" 1 Different methods have been adopted of evading our conclusion from Daniel's prophecy; but what method can be taken of escaping the same conclusion from Isaiah's? In

'Is. liii. Dan. ix. 25, 26.

admissible as Mr. C.'s interpretation of Daniel has been shown to be; he probably cannot adduce any thing, even so plausible as that is, in respect of Isaiah's words.

"And he made his grave with the wicked, and "with the rich in his death; because he had done "no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath

[ocr errors]

put him to grief." Here the innocence of the sufferer also is attested; yet, notwithstanding this "it PLEASED JEHOVAH to bruise him." He suffered unto death, and was buried. Dying as a malefactor," he made his grave with the wicked." "A grave was appointed for him among the "wicked; but with a rich man in his death." Every one knows the Christian interpretation: namely, that Jesus was interred in the sepulchre of Joseph, instead of being buried with the malefactors, in the grave appointed for them. And is not this singular coincidence of the event, with the obscure words of the prophet, a proof that this was intended by the Spirit of prophecy? Or what other interpretation has any man to propose, which can stand the competition with it?

That his grave should be " appointed with the ' wicked," (which was the case of those who suf'fered as criminals,) but that "he should be joined with the rich in his death," are circum'stances which, before they happened, it was very improbable should ever concur in the same person. (Campbell.)

[ocr errors]

But how was it that it should "please the Lord "to bruise him," &c.? What follows answers the question. "When thou shalt make his soul

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »