- Home
- Bible
- Isaiah
- Chapter 53
- Verse 53
Isaiah 53:9
Verse
Context
A Grave Assigned
8By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people. 9He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death, although He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.
Sermons
Major Ian Thomas
Chuck Smith
John GillJohn GillSummary
Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
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 sepulcher 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. 3:22. And to make the tumulus still more elevated and conspicuous, a pillar or some other ornament was often erected upon it: - Τυμβον χευαντες, και επι στηλην ερυσαντες, Πηξαμεν ακροτατῳ τυμβῳ ευηρες ερετμον. Odyss. sii. 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 sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which the body of Christ was laid, was upon a hill, Mount Calvary. See Isa 22:16 (note), 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. במה bamah, represents במותי bamotey, though plainly without any pronoun suffixed, as it governs the word ארץ arets following it, as only another form of במות bamoth; whereas the truth is, that במות bamoth and במותים bamothim are different words, and have through the whole Bible very different significations; במה bamah, whether occurring in the singular or plural number, always signifying a place or places of worship; and במותים bamothim always signifying heights. Thus in Deu 32:13; Isa 58:14; Amo 4:13; and Mic 1:3, במותי ארץ bamothey arets signifies 'the heights of the earth;' Isa 14:14, במותי עב bamothey ab, 'the heights of the clouds;' and in Job 9:8, במותי ים bamothey yam, 'the heights of the sea,' i.e., the high waves of the sea, as Virgil calls a wave praeruptus aqua mons, 'a broken mountain of water.' These being all the places where this word occurs without a suffix, the sense of it seems nearly determined by them. It occurs in other instances with a pronoun suffixed, which confirm this signification. Unluckily, our English Bible has not distinguished the feminine noun במה bamah from the masculine singular noun במות bamoth; and has consequently always given the signification of the latter to the former, always rendering it a high place; whereas the true sense of the word appears plainly to be, in the very numerous passages in which it occurs, 'a place of worship,' or 'a sacred court,' or 'a sacred inclosure;' whether appropriated to the worship of idols or to that of the true God, for it is used of both, passive. Now as the Jewish graves are shown, from Ch2 32:33, and Isa 22:16, to have been in high situations, to which may be added the custom of another eastern nation from Osbeck's Travels, who says, vol. 1 p. 339, 'the Chinese graves are made on the side of hills;' 'his heights' becomes a very easy metaphor to express 'his sepulcher.'" - Jubb. The exact completion of this prophecy will be fully shown by adding here the several circumstances of the burial of Jesus, collected from the accounts of the evangelists: - "There was a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, a member of the sanhedrin, and of a respectable character, who had not consented to their counsel and act; he went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus: and he laid it in his own new tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock, near to the place where Jesus was crucified; having first wound it in fine linen with spices, as the manner of the Jews was to bury the rich and great." It has been supposed that קברו kibro, his grave, and במתיו bemothaiv, in his death, may have been transposed, as also the prefix ב be originally placed before רשעים reshaim, the wicked. Thus: - מתיו את ברשעים ויתן mothaiv eth bireshayim vaiyitten קברו עשיר ואת kibro ashir veeth Yea, his death was appointed among the wicked, And with a rich man, his tomb. By these alterations it is supposed the text would be freed from all embarrassment. But see the preceding notes of Bishop Lowth, and the various readings of De Rossi, in loc.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
After this description in Isa 53:7 of the patience with which He suffered, and in Isa 53:8 of the manner in which He died, there follows a retrospective glance at His burial. "And they assigned Him His grave with sinners, and with a rich man in His martyrdom, because He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth." The subject to ויּתּן (assigned) is not Jehovah, although this would not be impossible, since נגע has Jehovah as the latent subject; but it would be irreconcilable with Isa 53:10, where Jehovah is introduced as the subject with antithetical prominence. It would be better to assume that "my people" is the subject; but as this would make it appear as if the statement introduced in Isa 53:8 with kı̄ (for) were continued here, we seem compelled to refer it to dōrō (His generation), which occurs in the principal clause. No objection could be offered to our regarding "His own generation" as the subject; but dōrō is somewhat too far removed for this; and if the prophet had had the contemporaries of the sufferer in his mind, he would most likely have used a plural verb (vayyittenū). Some, therefore, supply a personal subject of the most general kind to yittēn (which occurs even with a neuter subject, like the German es gibt, Fr. il y a, Eng. "there is;" cf., Pro 13:10): "they (on) gave;" and looking at the history of the fulfilment, we confess that this is the rendering we prefer. In fact, without the commentary supplied by the fulfilment, it would be impossible to understand Isa 53:9 at all. The earlier translators did great violence to the text, and yet failed to bring out any admissible thought. And the explanation which is most generally adopted now, viz., that עשׁיר is the synonymous parallel to רשׁעי (as even Luther rendered it, "and died like a rich man," with the marginal gloss, "a rich man who sets all his heart upon riches, i.e., a wicked man"), is also untenable; for even granting that ‛âshīr could be proved by examples to be sometimes used as synonymous with רשׁע, as עני and אביון are as synonyms of צדּיק, this would be just the passage in which it would be least possible to sustain any such use of the word; since he who finds his grave with rich men, whether with the godly or the ungodly, would thereby have received a decent, and even honourable burial. This is so thoroughly sustained by experience, as to need no confirmation from such passages as Job 21:32. Hitzig has very good ground, therefore, for opposing this "synonymous" explanation; but when he adopts the rendering lapsator, after the Arabic ‛tūr, this is quite as much in opposition to Arabic usage (according to which this word merely signifies a person who falls into error, and makes a mistake in speaking), as it is to the Hebrew. Ewald changes עשׁיר into עשּׁהיק (a word which has no existence); and Bttcher alters it into רע עשׂי, which is comparatively the best suggestion of all. Hofmann connects the two words בּמותיו עשׁיר, "men who have become rich through the murders that they have treacherously caused" (though without being able to adduce any proof that mōth is ever applied to the death which one person inflicts upon another). At any rate, all these attempts spring from the indisputable assumption, that to be rich is not in itself a sin which deserves a dishonourable burial, to say nothing of its receiving one. If, therefore, רשׁיעם and עשׁיר are not kindred ideas, they must be antithetical; but it is no easier to establish a purely ethical antithesis than an ethical coincidence. If, however, we take the word רשׁעים as suggesting the idea of persons found guilty, or criminals (an explanation which the juridical context of the passage well sustains; see at Isa 50:9), we get a contrast which our own usage of speech also draws between a rich man who is living in the enjoyment of his own possessions, and a delinquent who has become impoverished to the utmost, through hatred, condemnation, ruin. And if we reflect that the Jewish rulers would have given to Jesus the same dishonourable burial as to the two thieves, but that the Roman authorities handed over the body to Joseph the Arimathaean, a "rich man" (Mat 27:57), who placed it in the sepulchre in his own garden, we see an agreement at once between the gospel history and the prophetic words, which could only be the work of the God of both the prophecy and its fulfilment, inasmuch as no suspicion could possibly arise of there having been any human design of bringing the former into conformity with the latter. But if it be objected, that according to the parallel the ‛âshı̄r must be regarded as dead, quite as much as the reshâ‛ı̄m, we admit the force of this objection, and should explain it in this way: "They assigned Him His grave with criminals, and after He had actually died a martyr's death, with a rich man;" i.e., He was to have lain where the bodies of criminals lie, but He was really laid in a grave that was intended for the corpse of a rich man. (Note: A clairvoyant once said of the Lord: "Died like a criminal; buried like a prince of the earth" (vid., Psychol. pp. 262, 364).) The rendering adopted by Vitringa and others, "and He was with a rich man in his death," is open to this objection, that such a clause, to be quite free from ambiguity, would require במויתו הוּא ואת־עשׁיר. Hengstenberg and Stier very properly refer both ויתן and קברו, which must be repeated in thought, to the second clause as well as the first. The rendering tumulum ejus must be rejected, since bâmâh never has this meaning; and בּמתיו, which is the pointing sustained by three Codd., would not be mausolea, but a lofty burial-hill, after the fashion of the Hnengrber (certain "giants' graves," or barrows, in Holstein and Saxony). (Note: The usage of the language shows clearly that bâmâh had originally the meaning of "height" (e.g., Sa2 1:19). The primary meaning suggested by Bttcher, of locus clausus, septus (from בום = מהב, Arab. bhm), cannot be sustained. We still hold that בם is the expanded בא, and במה an ascent, steep place, or stair. In the Talmud, bâmâh is equivalent to βωμός, an altar, and בּימה (Syr. bim) equivalent to the βῆμα of the orator and judge; βωμός, root βα, like the Hebrew bâmâh, signifies literally an elevation, and actually occurs in the sense of a sepulchral hill, which this never has, not even in Eze 43:7.) מותי is a plur. exaggerativus here, as in Eze 28:10 (compare memōthē in Eze 28:8 and Jer 16:4); it is applied to a violent death, the very pain of which makes it like dying again and again. The first clause states with whom they at first assigned Him His grave; the second with whom it was assigned Him, after He had really died a painful death. "Of course," as F. Philippi observes, "this was not a thorough compensation for the ignominy of having died the death of a criminal; but the honourable burial, granted to one who had been ignominiously put to death, showed that there must be something very remarkable about Him. It was the beginning of the glorification which commenced with His death." If we have correctly interpreted the second clause, there can be no doubt in our minds, since we cannot shake the word of God like a kaleidoscope, and multiply the sensus complex, as Stier does, that לא על (= לא על־אשׁר) does not mean "notwithstanding that not," as in Job 16:17, but "because not," like על־בּלי in Gen 31:20. The reason why the Servant of God received such honourable treatment immediately after His ignominious martyrdom, was to be found in His freedom from sin, in the fact that He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth (lxx and Pe1 2:22, where the clause is correctly rendered οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῶ στόματι αὐτοῦ). His actions were invariably prompted by pure love, and His speech consisted of unclouded sincerity and truth.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Rather, "His grave was appointed," or "they appointed Him His grave" [HENGSTENBERG]; that is, they intended (by crucifying Him with two thieves, Mat 27:38) that He should have His grave "with the wicked." Compare Joh 19:31, the denial of honorable burial being accounted a great ignominy (see on Isa 14:19; Jer 26:23). and with . . . rich--rather, "but He was with a rich man," &c. GESENIUS, for the parallelism to "the wicked," translates "ungodly" (the effect of riches being to make one ungodly); but the Hebrew everywhere means "rich," never by itself ungodly; the parallelism, too, is one of contrast; namely, between their design and the fact, as it was ordered by God (Mat 27:57; Mar 15:43-46; Joh 19:39-40); two rich men honored Him at His death, Joseph of ArimathÃ&brvbra, and Nicodemus. in his death--Hebrew, "deaths." LOWTH translates, "His tomb"; bamoth, from a different root, meaning "high places," and so mounds for sepulture (Eze 43:7). But all the versions oppose this, and the Hebrew hardly admits it. Rather translate, "after His death" [HENGSTENBERG]; as we say, "at His death." The plural, "deaths," intensifies the force; as Adam by sin "dying died" (Gen 2:17, Margin); that is, incurred death, physical and spiritual. So Messiah, His substitute, endured death in both senses; spiritual, during His temporary abandonment by the Father; physical, when He gave up the ghost. because--rather, as the sense demands (so in Job 16:17), "although He had done no," &c. [HENGSTENBERG], (Pe1 2:20-22; Jo1 3:5). violence--that is, wrong.
John Gill Bible Commentary
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 he himself had been one, was buried in a rich man's grave. Could the words admit of the following transposition, they would exactly agree with it, "and he made his grave with the rich; and with the wicked in his death"; for he died between two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man. Or the meaning perhaps in general is, that, after his death, both rich men and wicked men were concerned in his sepulchre, and about his grave; two rich men, Nicodemus and Joseph, in taking down his body from the cross, in embalming it, and in laying it in the tomb of the latter; and wicked men, Roman soldiers, were employed in guarding the sepulchre, that his disciples might not take away the body. Or the sense is, "he" the people, the nation of the Jews, through whose enmity against him he suffered death, "gave", intended, and designed, that "his grave" should be with "the wicked"; and therefore accused him to the Roman governor, and got him condemned capitally, and condemned to a Roman death, crucifixion, that he might be buried where such sort of persons usually were; and then it may be supplied, "but he made it"; that is, God ordered and appointed, in his overruling providence, that it should be "with the rich in his death", as it was. Aben Ezra observes, that the word which we translate "in his death", signifies a structure over a grave, "a sepulchral monument"; and then it may be rendered impersonally thus, "his grave was put or placed with the wicked, but his tomb", or sepulchral monument, was "with the rich"; his grave was indeed put under the care and custody of the wicked soldiers; yet a famous tomb being erected over it, at the expense of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathaea, which was designed for himself, made the burial of Christ honourable: which honour was done him, because he had done no violence: or injury to any man's person or property; had not been guilty of rapine and oppression, theft and robbery; murder and cruelty; he had not been a stirrer up of sedition, an encourager of mobs, riots, and tumults, to the harm of the civil government: neither was any deceit in his mouth: no false doctrine was delivered by him; he was no deceiver of the people, as he was charged; he did not attempt to seduce them from the true worship of God, or persuade them to believe anything contrary to the law of Moses, and the prophets; he was no enemy to church or state, nor indeed guilty of any manner of sin, nor given to any arts of trick and dissimulation; see Pe1 2:22. Some render the words, "though" (y) "he had done no violence", &c. and connect them with the following. (y) "quamvis", Vatablus, Calvin, Noldius; "licet", Syr. Interpr.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
53:9 no wrong . . . never deceived anyone: See 1 Pet 2:21-25. • in a rich man’s grave: Literally he was with the rich in his death (see Matt 27:57-61). Although the Bible often considers riches as a blessing from God, it regularly condemns the rich as crooked and oppressive. The point here might be ironic: This good man would be buried with oppressors.
Isaiah 53:9
A Grave Assigned
8By oppression and judgment He was taken away, and who can recount His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living; He was stricken for the transgression of My people. 9He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death, although He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.
- Scripture
- Sermons
- Commentary
(Church Leadership) 14. the Way of the Cross
By Zac Poonen1.5K58:46GEN 6:9JOB 1:1JOB 40:1ISA 52:14ISA 53:2ISA 53:7ISA 53:9In this sermon, the speaker emphasizes the importance of following Jesus and taking up the cross. He highlights how Jesus faced constant hostility and was willing to shed his blood rather than sin. The speaker criticizes preachers who prioritize charisma and financial gain over the way of the cross. He shares his own experience of finding the right type of fish by focusing on following Jesus rather than using worldly methods. The sermon encourages listeners to imitate Jesus' selflessness and truthfulness in their own lives.
All That Jesus Taught Bible Study - Part 78
By Zac Poonen65525:05ISA 53:9MAT 7:24MAT 27:65JHN 14:15JHN 14:21ROM 8:28ROM 15:31CO 6:19HEB 10:19
This sermon delves into the significance of the torn veil in the temple when Jesus died, symbolizing the opening of the way into God's presence. It explores the concept of man as a tabernacle of God with three parts - body, soul, and spirit, emphasizing the need to deny self-will to allow the Holy Spirit to dwell within. The torn veil represents the tearing of Jesus' self-will, paving the way for believers to follow the new and living way of denying self and obeying God's will. Obedience to God's commandments and love for others are highlighted as essential aspects of proving love for Christ.
The Better Hope - God Has Done What the Law Could Not Do
By Major Ian Thomas81:03:34Faith vs. LawRedemption and RegenerationISA 53:9ROM 3:19ROM 8:3GAL 3:8EPH 1:16COL 1:27HEB 7:18HEB 10:12Major Ian Thomas emphasizes that the law was unable to provide salvation, as it merely highlighted humanity's sinfulness and need for redemption. He explains that God's covenant with Abraham foreshadowed the coming of Christ, who fulfilled the law's requirements through His sacrificial death and resurrection. The sermon illustrates that salvation is not about adhering to the law but about receiving the life of Christ through faith, which brings about regeneration and a new relationship with God. Thomas encourages believers to rely on the Holy Spirit for strength and guidance, rather than attempting to achieve righteousness through their own efforts.
Micah 5:1
By Chuck Smith0ProphecyThe Suffering MessiahPSA 22:18ISA 53:5ISA 53:9MIC 5:1ZEC 12:10MAT 27:39LUK 23:34JHN 19:341CO 15:31PE 1:19Chuck Smith emphasizes the prophetic significance of Micah 5:1, which foretells the suffering of the Messiah, highlighting how the events of Jesus' crucifixion were predetermined by God. He explains that the smiting of the Judge of Israel was not an accident but part of God's plan to reveal His love for humanity. Smith references various prophecies from the Old Testament that align with the New Testament accounts of Jesus' suffering, betrayal, and death, illustrating the fulfillment of scripture through these events. The sermon underscores the importance of recognizing Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and the depth of His sacrifice for our sins.
Of the Burial of Christ.
By John Gill0Assurance of ResurrectionHumiliation of ChristPSA 16:10ISA 53:9MAT 12:40JHN 11:39ROM 6:41CO 15:42CO 2:14EPH 4:9REV 19:8John Gill emphasizes the significance of Christ's burial as the final act of His humiliation, fulfilling scriptural prophecies and types. He explains that Christ's burial was necessary to demonstrate the reality of His death and to signify the complete atonement for sin. Gill highlights that Christ's body was laid in a rich man's tomb, symbolizing both His lowly state and the glory of His resurrection. The sermon also reflects on the implications of Christ's burial for believers, illustrating how it sanctifies the grave and signifies the burial of their sins. Ultimately, Gill reassures that through Christ's burial, believers can find hope and assurance in their own resurrection.
The Burial of Jesus John 19:31-42; Matthew 27:61-66
By R.A. Torrey0Courage in FaithFulfillment of ProphecyPSA 76:10PRO 29:25ISA 53:9ZEC 12:10MAT 10:32MAT 27:61JHN 3:1JHN 19:31ROM 10:9R.A. Torrey explores the burial of Jesus, emphasizing the certainty of His death and the significance of the events surrounding it. He discusses the meticulous precautions taken by the Jews and Roman authorities to ensure Jesus was truly dead and the implications of Joseph of Arimathea's secret discipleship, which transformed into boldness after Jesus' death. The sermon highlights the fulfillment of prophecies regarding Jesus' burial and the actions of those who opposed Him, ultimately showcasing how their efforts only served to authenticate His resurrection. Torrey encourages believers to reflect on their own faith and the courage to stand for Christ, even in the face of fear.
1 Peter 2:22
By John Gill0Patience in SufferingChrist's InnocenceISA 53:9MAT 27:12JHN 8:46ROM 5:82CO 5:21PHP 2:7HEB 4:151PE 2:221PE 3:181JN 3:5John Gill expounds on 1 Peter 2:22, emphasizing that Christ, though appearing in the likeness of sinful flesh and bearing the sins of humanity, was without sin both in nature and action. He highlights that Jesus faced accusations and suffering without any deceit or wrongdoing, serving as a model for patience in the face of suffering. Gill argues that if Christ, who was entirely innocent, endured such trials, then sinful humanity should also strive to bear their own sufferings with patience and grace.
My Life in Christ
By St. John of Kronstadt0PSA 148:5ISA 53:9MAT 18:22JHN 14:6HEB 4:151PE 2:221JN 3:5JUD 1:19St. John of Kronstadt, born in 1829, was a man of great prayer and compassion, known for his extraordinary ministry in Kronstadt, where he helped thousands with spiritual and material aid. He emphasized the importance of true prayer and spiritual warfare in the Christian life, acknowledging the constant battle against the enemy and the need for vigilance and self-discipline. His diary, 'My Life In Christ,' serves as a manual for spiritual warfare, highlighting the power of prayer, faith, and service to God and others.
The Character of Christ
By W.H. Griffith Thomas0ISA 53:9JHN 1:142CO 5:21PHP 2:8HEB 4:15HEB 7:261PE 1:191PE 2:221JN 3:5W.H. Griffith Thomas delves into the unparalleled personality of Jesus Christ, emphasizing the perfect blend of grace and truth that defined His character. His graciousness and truthfulness were evident in every aspect of His life, attracting people of all ages and genders. Jesus Christ's sinlessness sets Him apart from all other historical figures, with His foes, friends, and His own life testifying to His purity. The Christian Church's emphasis on Christ's sinlessness is crucial as it underpins the claim of Christianity to deliver from sin, making Him the unique Redeemer of mankind.
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
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 sepulcher 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. 3:22. And to make the tumulus still more elevated and conspicuous, a pillar or some other ornament was often erected upon it: - Τυμβον χευαντες, και επι στηλην ερυσαντες, Πηξαμεν ακροτατῳ τυμβῳ ευηρες ερετμον. Odyss. sii. 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 sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which the body of Christ was laid, was upon a hill, Mount Calvary. See Isa 22:16 (note), 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. במה bamah, represents במותי bamotey, though plainly without any pronoun suffixed, as it governs the word ארץ arets following it, as only another form of במות bamoth; whereas the truth is, that במות bamoth and במותים bamothim are different words, and have through the whole Bible very different significations; במה bamah, whether occurring in the singular or plural number, always signifying a place or places of worship; and במותים bamothim always signifying heights. Thus in Deu 32:13; Isa 58:14; Amo 4:13; and Mic 1:3, במותי ארץ bamothey arets signifies 'the heights of the earth;' Isa 14:14, במותי עב bamothey ab, 'the heights of the clouds;' and in Job 9:8, במותי ים bamothey yam, 'the heights of the sea,' i.e., the high waves of the sea, as Virgil calls a wave praeruptus aqua mons, 'a broken mountain of water.' These being all the places where this word occurs without a suffix, the sense of it seems nearly determined by them. It occurs in other instances with a pronoun suffixed, which confirm this signification. Unluckily, our English Bible has not distinguished the feminine noun במה bamah from the masculine singular noun במות bamoth; and has consequently always given the signification of the latter to the former, always rendering it a high place; whereas the true sense of the word appears plainly to be, in the very numerous passages in which it occurs, 'a place of worship,' or 'a sacred court,' or 'a sacred inclosure;' whether appropriated to the worship of idols or to that of the true God, for it is used of both, passive. Now as the Jewish graves are shown, from Ch2 32:33, and Isa 22:16, to have been in high situations, to which may be added the custom of another eastern nation from Osbeck's Travels, who says, vol. 1 p. 339, 'the Chinese graves are made on the side of hills;' 'his heights' becomes a very easy metaphor to express 'his sepulcher.'" - Jubb. The exact completion of this prophecy will be fully shown by adding here the several circumstances of the burial of Jesus, collected from the accounts of the evangelists: - "There was a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, a member of the sanhedrin, and of a respectable character, who had not consented to their counsel and act; he went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus: and he laid it in his own new tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock, near to the place where Jesus was crucified; having first wound it in fine linen with spices, as the manner of the Jews was to bury the rich and great." It has been supposed that קברו kibro, his grave, and במתיו bemothaiv, in his death, may have been transposed, as also the prefix ב be originally placed before רשעים reshaim, the wicked. Thus: - מתיו את ברשעים ויתן mothaiv eth bireshayim vaiyitten קברו עשיר ואת kibro ashir veeth Yea, his death was appointed among the wicked, And with a rich man, his tomb. By these alterations it is supposed the text would be freed from all embarrassment. But see the preceding notes of Bishop Lowth, and the various readings of De Rossi, in loc.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
After this description in Isa 53:7 of the patience with which He suffered, and in Isa 53:8 of the manner in which He died, there follows a retrospective glance at His burial. "And they assigned Him His grave with sinners, and with a rich man in His martyrdom, because He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth." The subject to ויּתּן (assigned) is not Jehovah, although this would not be impossible, since נגע has Jehovah as the latent subject; but it would be irreconcilable with Isa 53:10, where Jehovah is introduced as the subject with antithetical prominence. It would be better to assume that "my people" is the subject; but as this would make it appear as if the statement introduced in Isa 53:8 with kı̄ (for) were continued here, we seem compelled to refer it to dōrō (His generation), which occurs in the principal clause. No objection could be offered to our regarding "His own generation" as the subject; but dōrō is somewhat too far removed for this; and if the prophet had had the contemporaries of the sufferer in his mind, he would most likely have used a plural verb (vayyittenū). Some, therefore, supply a personal subject of the most general kind to yittēn (which occurs even with a neuter subject, like the German es gibt, Fr. il y a, Eng. "there is;" cf., Pro 13:10): "they (on) gave;" and looking at the history of the fulfilment, we confess that this is the rendering we prefer. In fact, without the commentary supplied by the fulfilment, it would be impossible to understand Isa 53:9 at all. The earlier translators did great violence to the text, and yet failed to bring out any admissible thought. And the explanation which is most generally adopted now, viz., that עשׁיר is the synonymous parallel to רשׁעי (as even Luther rendered it, "and died like a rich man," with the marginal gloss, "a rich man who sets all his heart upon riches, i.e., a wicked man"), is also untenable; for even granting that ‛âshīr could be proved by examples to be sometimes used as synonymous with רשׁע, as עני and אביון are as synonyms of צדּיק, this would be just the passage in which it would be least possible to sustain any such use of the word; since he who finds his grave with rich men, whether with the godly or the ungodly, would thereby have received a decent, and even honourable burial. This is so thoroughly sustained by experience, as to need no confirmation from such passages as Job 21:32. Hitzig has very good ground, therefore, for opposing this "synonymous" explanation; but when he adopts the rendering lapsator, after the Arabic ‛tūr, this is quite as much in opposition to Arabic usage (according to which this word merely signifies a person who falls into error, and makes a mistake in speaking), as it is to the Hebrew. Ewald changes עשׁיר into עשּׁהיק (a word which has no existence); and Bttcher alters it into רע עשׂי, which is comparatively the best suggestion of all. Hofmann connects the two words בּמותיו עשׁיר, "men who have become rich through the murders that they have treacherously caused" (though without being able to adduce any proof that mōth is ever applied to the death which one person inflicts upon another). At any rate, all these attempts spring from the indisputable assumption, that to be rich is not in itself a sin which deserves a dishonourable burial, to say nothing of its receiving one. If, therefore, רשׁיעם and עשׁיר are not kindred ideas, they must be antithetical; but it is no easier to establish a purely ethical antithesis than an ethical coincidence. If, however, we take the word רשׁעים as suggesting the idea of persons found guilty, or criminals (an explanation which the juridical context of the passage well sustains; see at Isa 50:9), we get a contrast which our own usage of speech also draws between a rich man who is living in the enjoyment of his own possessions, and a delinquent who has become impoverished to the utmost, through hatred, condemnation, ruin. And if we reflect that the Jewish rulers would have given to Jesus the same dishonourable burial as to the two thieves, but that the Roman authorities handed over the body to Joseph the Arimathaean, a "rich man" (Mat 27:57), who placed it in the sepulchre in his own garden, we see an agreement at once between the gospel history and the prophetic words, which could only be the work of the God of both the prophecy and its fulfilment, inasmuch as no suspicion could possibly arise of there having been any human design of bringing the former into conformity with the latter. But if it be objected, that according to the parallel the ‛âshı̄r must be regarded as dead, quite as much as the reshâ‛ı̄m, we admit the force of this objection, and should explain it in this way: "They assigned Him His grave with criminals, and after He had actually died a martyr's death, with a rich man;" i.e., He was to have lain where the bodies of criminals lie, but He was really laid in a grave that was intended for the corpse of a rich man. (Note: A clairvoyant once said of the Lord: "Died like a criminal; buried like a prince of the earth" (vid., Psychol. pp. 262, 364).) The rendering adopted by Vitringa and others, "and He was with a rich man in his death," is open to this objection, that such a clause, to be quite free from ambiguity, would require במויתו הוּא ואת־עשׁיר. Hengstenberg and Stier very properly refer both ויתן and קברו, which must be repeated in thought, to the second clause as well as the first. The rendering tumulum ejus must be rejected, since bâmâh never has this meaning; and בּמתיו, which is the pointing sustained by three Codd., would not be mausolea, but a lofty burial-hill, after the fashion of the Hnengrber (certain "giants' graves," or barrows, in Holstein and Saxony). (Note: The usage of the language shows clearly that bâmâh had originally the meaning of "height" (e.g., Sa2 1:19). The primary meaning suggested by Bttcher, of locus clausus, septus (from בום = מהב, Arab. bhm), cannot be sustained. We still hold that בם is the expanded בא, and במה an ascent, steep place, or stair. In the Talmud, bâmâh is equivalent to βωμός, an altar, and בּימה (Syr. bim) equivalent to the βῆμα of the orator and judge; βωμός, root βα, like the Hebrew bâmâh, signifies literally an elevation, and actually occurs in the sense of a sepulchral hill, which this never has, not even in Eze 43:7.) מותי is a plur. exaggerativus here, as in Eze 28:10 (compare memōthē in Eze 28:8 and Jer 16:4); it is applied to a violent death, the very pain of which makes it like dying again and again. The first clause states with whom they at first assigned Him His grave; the second with whom it was assigned Him, after He had really died a painful death. "Of course," as F. Philippi observes, "this was not a thorough compensation for the ignominy of having died the death of a criminal; but the honourable burial, granted to one who had been ignominiously put to death, showed that there must be something very remarkable about Him. It was the beginning of the glorification which commenced with His death." If we have correctly interpreted the second clause, there can be no doubt in our minds, since we cannot shake the word of God like a kaleidoscope, and multiply the sensus complex, as Stier does, that לא על (= לא על־אשׁר) does not mean "notwithstanding that not," as in Job 16:17, but "because not," like על־בּלי in Gen 31:20. The reason why the Servant of God received such honourable treatment immediately after His ignominious martyrdom, was to be found in His freedom from sin, in the fact that He had done no wrong, and there was no deceit in His mouth (lxx and Pe1 2:22, where the clause is correctly rendered οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῶ στόματι αὐτοῦ). His actions were invariably prompted by pure love, and His speech consisted of unclouded sincerity and truth.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Rather, "His grave was appointed," or "they appointed Him His grave" [HENGSTENBERG]; that is, they intended (by crucifying Him with two thieves, Mat 27:38) that He should have His grave "with the wicked." Compare Joh 19:31, the denial of honorable burial being accounted a great ignominy (see on Isa 14:19; Jer 26:23). and with . . . rich--rather, "but He was with a rich man," &c. GESENIUS, for the parallelism to "the wicked," translates "ungodly" (the effect of riches being to make one ungodly); but the Hebrew everywhere means "rich," never by itself ungodly; the parallelism, too, is one of contrast; namely, between their design and the fact, as it was ordered by God (Mat 27:57; Mar 15:43-46; Joh 19:39-40); two rich men honored Him at His death, Joseph of ArimathÃ&brvbra, and Nicodemus. in his death--Hebrew, "deaths." LOWTH translates, "His tomb"; bamoth, from a different root, meaning "high places," and so mounds for sepulture (Eze 43:7). But all the versions oppose this, and the Hebrew hardly admits it. Rather translate, "after His death" [HENGSTENBERG]; as we say, "at His death." The plural, "deaths," intensifies the force; as Adam by sin "dying died" (Gen 2:17, Margin); that is, incurred death, physical and spiritual. So Messiah, His substitute, endured death in both senses; spiritual, during His temporary abandonment by the Father; physical, when He gave up the ghost. because--rather, as the sense demands (so in Job 16:17), "although He had done no," &c. [HENGSTENBERG], (Pe1 2:20-22; Jo1 3:5). violence--that is, wrong.
John Gill Bible Commentary
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 he himself had been one, was buried in a rich man's grave. Could the words admit of the following transposition, they would exactly agree with it, "and he made his grave with the rich; and with the wicked in his death"; for he died between two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich man. Or the meaning perhaps in general is, that, after his death, both rich men and wicked men were concerned in his sepulchre, and about his grave; two rich men, Nicodemus and Joseph, in taking down his body from the cross, in embalming it, and in laying it in the tomb of the latter; and wicked men, Roman soldiers, were employed in guarding the sepulchre, that his disciples might not take away the body. Or the sense is, "he" the people, the nation of the Jews, through whose enmity against him he suffered death, "gave", intended, and designed, that "his grave" should be with "the wicked"; and therefore accused him to the Roman governor, and got him condemned capitally, and condemned to a Roman death, crucifixion, that he might be buried where such sort of persons usually were; and then it may be supplied, "but he made it"; that is, God ordered and appointed, in his overruling providence, that it should be "with the rich in his death", as it was. Aben Ezra observes, that the word which we translate "in his death", signifies a structure over a grave, "a sepulchral monument"; and then it may be rendered impersonally thus, "his grave was put or placed with the wicked, but his tomb", or sepulchral monument, was "with the rich"; his grave was indeed put under the care and custody of the wicked soldiers; yet a famous tomb being erected over it, at the expense of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathaea, which was designed for himself, made the burial of Christ honourable: which honour was done him, because he had done no violence: or injury to any man's person or property; had not been guilty of rapine and oppression, theft and robbery; murder and cruelty; he had not been a stirrer up of sedition, an encourager of mobs, riots, and tumults, to the harm of the civil government: neither was any deceit in his mouth: no false doctrine was delivered by him; he was no deceiver of the people, as he was charged; he did not attempt to seduce them from the true worship of God, or persuade them to believe anything contrary to the law of Moses, and the prophets; he was no enemy to church or state, nor indeed guilty of any manner of sin, nor given to any arts of trick and dissimulation; see Pe1 2:22. Some render the words, "though" (y) "he had done no violence", &c. and connect them with the following. (y) "quamvis", Vatablus, Calvin, Noldius; "licet", Syr. Interpr.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
53:9 no wrong . . . never deceived anyone: See 1 Pet 2:21-25. • in a rich man’s grave: Literally he was with the rich in his death (see Matt 27:57-61). Although the Bible often considers riches as a blessing from God, it regularly condemns the rich as crooked and oppressive. The point here might be ironic: This good man would be buried with oppressors.