Isaiah 53:9

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,.... These words are generally supposed to refer to a fact that was afterwards done; that Christ, who died with wicked men, as if

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.

He made his grave with the wicked; and although he did not die for his own, but only for his people’ s sins, yet he was willing to die like a malefactor, or like a sinner, as all other men are, and to be put into the grave, as they used to be; which was a further degree of his humiliation. He saith, he made his grave, because this was Christ’ s own act, and he willingly yielded up himself to death and burial. And that which follows, with the wicked, doth not note the sameness of place, as if he should be buried in the same grave with ether malefactors, but the sameness of condition; as when David prayeth, , Gather not my soul (to wit, by death) with sinners, he doth not mean it of the same grave, but of the same state of the dead. With the rich in his death: this passage is thought by many to signify that Christ should be buried in the sepulchre of Joseph, who is said to be both rich, , and honourable, , which they conceive to be intimated as a token of favour and honour showed to him; which to me seems not probable, partly because this disagrees with the former clause, which confessedly speaks of the dishonour which was done to him; and partly because the burial of Christ, whatsoever circumstances it was attended with, is ever mentioned in Scripture as a part of his humiliation, Acts 2 24,27. And it seems more reasonable, and more agreeable to the usage of the Holy Scripture, that this clause should design the same thing with the former, and that by rich he means the same persons whom he now called wicked, not as if all rich men were or must needs be wicked, but because for the most part they are so; upon which ground riches and rich men do commonly pass under an ill name in Scripture; of which see 49:6 18:24 5:1. In his death, Heb. in or at (or after, as this particle is frequently taken, as hath been already noted) his deaths; for Christ’ s death might well be called deaths, in the plural number, because he underwent many kinds of death, and many deadly dangers and pains, which are frequently called by the name of death in Scripture, of which instances have been formerly given; and he might say, with no less truth than Paul did, , I die daily, and . I was in deaths oft. Because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth: this some suppose to be added as a reason of the last branch of the foregoing clause, why God so overruled matters by his providence, that Christ should not be buried in the same grave, or in the same ignominious manner, as malefactors were, but in a more honourable manner, in Joseph’ s own tomb.

Isaiah 53:9 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.Ver. 9. And he made his grave with the wicked,] i.e., He should have been buried among malefactors had not rich Joseph begged his body. Or, His dead body was at the disposal of wicked ones, and of rich men or rulers, the Jews and Pilate, at his death. And with the rich.] The same, say some, with wicked. And indeed Magna cognatio ut rei sic nominis, divitiis et vitiis. Rich men are put for wicked rich. And how hardly do rich men enter heaven! Hyperius thinks that the two thieves crucified together with Christ were rich men, put to death for sedition; and Christ was placed in the midst, as their chieftain; whence also that memorable title set over his head, "King of the Jews." Because he had done no violence.] Or, Albeit he had done, &c., notwithstanding his innocence and integrity. “ Nec te tun plurima Pentheu Labentem texit pietas. ”

(9) And he made his grave . . .—Literally, one (or, they) assigned him a grave . . . The words are often interpreted as fulfilled in our Lord’s crucifixion between the two robbers and his burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. It has to be noted, however, (1) that this requires an inversion of the clauses; (2) that it introduces a feature scarcely in harmony with the general drift of the description; (3) that the laws of parallelism require us to take the “rich” of one clause as corresponding to the “wicked” of the other, i.e., as in the sense of the wrongfully rich, the oppressors, as in Psalms 49:6; Psalms 49:16; Psalms 73:3-5. Men assigned to the Servant not the burial of a saint, with reverence and honour (such, e.g., as that of Stephen, Acts 8:2), but that of an unjust oppressor, for whom no man lamented, saying, “Ah lord! Ah my brother! Ah his glory!” (Jeremiah 22:18), and this although (not “because”) he had done no violence to deserve it. (Comp. Job 16:17.) The rendering “because” has been adopted as giving a reason for the honourable burial which, it has been assumed, the words imply. It may be questioned, however, when we remember Isaiah’s words as to Shebna (Isaiah 22:16), whether he would have looked on such a burial as that recorded in the Gospels, clandestine, and with no public lamentation, as an adequate recognition of the holiness of the victim. The point of the last two clauses is that they declare emphatically the absolute rectitude of the sufferer in act, his absolute veracity in speech.

Verse 9. With the rich in his death - "With the rich man was his tomb"] It may be necessary to introduce Bishop Lowth's translation of this verse before we come to his very satisfactory criticisms: - And his grave was appointed with the wicked; But with the rich man was his tomb: Although he had done no wrong, Neither was there any guile in his mouth. Among the various opinions which have been given on this passage, I have no doubt in giving my assent to that which makes the ב beth in במותיו bemothaiv radical, and renders it excelsa sua. This is mentioned by Aben Ezra as received by some in his time; and has been long since approved by Schindler, Drusius, and many other learned Christian interpreters. The most simple tombs or monuments of old consisted of hillocks of earth heaped up over the grave; of which we have numerous examples in our own country, generally allowed to be of very high antiquity. The Romans called a monument of this sort very properly tumulus; and the Hebrews as properly במות bamoth, "high place," for that is the form of the noun in the singular number; and sixteen MSS. and the two oldest editions express the word fully in this place, במותיו bamothaiv. Tumulus et collem et sepulchrum fuisse significat. Potest enim tumulus sine sepulchro interpretatione collis interdum accipi. Nam et terrae congestio super ossa tumulus dicitur. "Tumulus signifies a sepulchre with a hillock of earth raised over it. The word is sometimes restrained to the bank of earth; for the heaping up of the earth over the bones is named the tumulus." - Servius, AEn. iii. 22. And to make the tumulus still more elevated and conspicuous, a pillar or some other ornament was often erected upon it: - Τυμβονχευαντες, καιεπιστηληνερυσαντες, Πηξαμενακροτατῳτυμβῳευηρεςερετμον. Odyss. xii. 14. "A rising tomb, the silent dead to grace, Fast by the roarings of the main we place; The rising tomb a lofty column bore, And high above it rose the tapering oar." POPE. The tomb therefore might with great propriety be called the high place. The Hebrews might also call such a tomb במות bamoth, from the situation, for they generally chose to erect them on eminences. The sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, in which the body of Christ was laid, was upon a hill, Mount Calvary. See Isaiah 22:16, and the note there. "It should be observed that the word במותיו bamothaiv is not formed from במות bamoth, the plural of במה bamah, the feminine noun, but from במותים bamothim, the plural of a masculine noun, במות bamoth. This is noted because these two nouns have been negligently confounded with one another, and absurdly reduced to one by very learned men. So Buxtorf, lex. in voc.

9. The unrelenting antipathy which the Servant experienced through life is continued even after his death, and expresses itself in the manner of his burial. And they (R.V.) made his grave with the wicked] The subject is indefinite, the construction being equivalent to a passive: “And his grave was made” &c. “With the wicked” need not imply that a special burial-ground was set apart for them as a class, but only that such persons were buried ignominiously and away from the family sepulchre, like Absalom (2 Samuel 18:17). From Jeremiah 26:23 (cf. 2 Kings 23:6) it appears that it was a disgrace to be buried among the “common people.” In this case the “wicked” probably means the notoriously wicked, criminals, apostates, and such like. With these the Servant was numbered because his calamities had seemed to mark him out as a heinous sinner in the sight of God. and with the rich in his death] This clause must express the same idea as the preceding. To take the two antithetically: “they meant his grave to be with the wicked, but he was with the rich in his death” (Delitzsch) is utterly unwarrantable. It is, no doubt, somewhat difficult to justify this sense of “rich” as synonymous with “wicked” from O.T. usage, although it might perhaps be suggested by the common identification of poverty with piety. This explanation, however, is not quite satisfactory, and several emendations have been proposed, such as “the oppressor” (ςָ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?χִ for ςָ ?ωִׁ ?ιψ), “the defrauder” (ςָ ?ωִׁ ?ιχ, Aramaic), “evil-doers” (ςֹ ?ωֵׂ ?ιψַ ?ς). in his death] lit. “in his deaths.” The use of the plural is variously explained. Some find in it an intimation of the collective character of the subject spoken of under the name of the Servant; but even if the Servant be a collective idea, it is inconceivable that the writer should have here abandoned the personification which he has so strictly maintained throughout. Nor is it any relief to say that it means “in his state of death.” It is better to read the singular with the LXX. There is, however, another reading found in a few MSS. and adopted by many commentators, according to which the clause would form a perfect parallelism with the first line: “And with the rich (or oppressor, &c.) his sepulchral mound.” But the word bβmβh (= high-place) is not elsewhere used in this sense. because he had done no violence &c.] Render with R.V. although (“in spite of the fact that”) &c. as in Job 16:17. With this assertion of his innocence the narrative of the Servant’s career reaches its conclusion. While absolute sinlessness is not explicitly predicated of him, but only freedom from “violence” and “deceit,” yet the image of the lamb led to the slaughter, and his patient resignation to the will of God, strongly suggest that the prophet had in his mind the conception of a perfectly sinless character.

And he made his grave with the wicked - Jerome renders this, Et dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte sua.

9. Made his grave with the wicked… with the rich — How circumstantial the facts in this verse! As if himself were a malefactor, he suffered and died with malefactors.