This verse is quoted
very frequently by DML-J in his evangelistic preaching. What is the context of this verse and what
does it mean? The context is the
Suffering Servant of Isaiah and this individual is identified with Christ in
His death by Calvin in his sermons on this passage.[1] The Geneva Bible notes state that the
punishment of the iniquity of us all was laid on Him. Hyper-Calvinist, Dr. John Gill, in his
exposition of this phrase, states quite categorically, “he has laid on Christ,
his own Son, the sins of all his elect ones.”
Continuing, he adds, “[God the Father] ... laid on Christ, and were bore
by him, even all the sins of all God’s elect...” Further, Gill teaches,
The
words may be rendered, "he made to meet upon him the iniquity of us
all"; the elect of God, as they live in every part of the world, their sins
are represented as coming from all quarters, east, west, north, and south; and
as meeting in Christ, as they did, when he suffered as their representative on
the cross ...
Gill in his
interpretation is clearly limiting the teaching of this verse and restricting
it to the elect only and universally, but unlike Calvin does not see it as
applying to the whole world of men. Yet,
Gill quotes R. Cohana (favourably) when he says,
“...as
the ass bears burdens, and the garments of travellers, so the King Messiah will
bear upon him the sins of the whole world; as it is said, "the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all.”[2]
This appears just a
tad inconsistent with his stated position, yet he included it in his comment on
this verse.
Gill’s interpretation
contrasts with that of Calvin who preaches (in his sermon on Isa.53:4-6):
“...took Him as being there in the place of all sinners. So we see that Jesus Christ was laden with
all our sins and iniquities...”[3] Calvin’s oft-repeated phrase “the death and passion
of Christ” is used to point to what He has done for all men, all sinners. Indeed, Calvin preaches that Isaiah includes
the word “all” to “exclude all exceptions.”[4] “For our Lord Jesus has enough to satisfy us
all...”[5] Or again, “Let us then come boldly to our
Lord Jesus Christ, and He will suffice for all...”[6] Further, Calvin preaches, “for God was not
satisfied with sending his Son once for all ... He will be sufficient to give
us such a remedy that we can conclude that we are received and acknowledged by
God as His own children, and that He will look upon us as righteous and perfect
and instead of abominable before Him.”[7] Calvin’s inclusivity with respect to Christ’s
work of redemption is set out his exposition of Isa.53:6. In fact, he contends that this entire passage
(Isa.53) is exclusively about the death and passion of Christ.
Linking this verse
with 2 Cor.5:21, a (unnamed) commentator stated,
He was not merely a sin offering
(which would destroy the antithesis to “righteousness”), but “sin for us”; sin
itself vicariously; the representative of the aggregate sin of all
mankind; not sins in the plural, for the “sin” of the world is one
(Romans 5:16 Romans 5:17 );[8]
This is again in
agreement with Calvin; the iniquity that was laid on Christ was that of all
mankind, the normal meaning of the words used.
Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry,
wrote on this verse:
For
whom this atonement was to be made. It was the iniquity of us all that was laid on Christ; for in Christ
there is a sufficiency of merit for the salvation of all, and a serious offer
made of that salvation to all, which excludes none that do not exclude
themselves. It intimates that this is the one only way of salvation. All that
are justified are justified by having their sins laid on Jesus Christ, and,
though they were ever so many, he is able to bear the weight of them all.
His exegesis is
abundantly clear. He does not qualify
“of us all” but takes the words in their normal meaning. Introducing the “sufficiency of merit in
Christ for the salvation of all,” which includes “a serious offer made of that
salvation to all,” an offer that “excludes none that do not exclude
themselves,” Henry is true to the clear teaching of Scripture. Because God laid on Christ the penalty of sin
for us all, there is universal provision in the atonement made by the Saviour.
Wesley’s notes on
the Old Testament give a similarly clear interpretation:
That which was due for all the sins of all mankind,
which must needs be so heavy a load, that if he had not been God as well as
man, he must have sunk under the burden.[9]
The Methodist
preacher demonstrates his closeness to Calvin in his understanding of the
universal terms used by Isaiah, and highlights the distance he was from
Gill.
When expounding the phrase “of us
all,” Rawlinson explains the universality of the atonement in these terms: “The redemption is as universal as the sin,
at any rate, potentially.” Christ on the
cross made “a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice ... for the sins of the
whole world.”[10] The text of Scripture is taken in its
natural, common-sense, meaning. There is
provision in the atonement for all, therefore none need die without an
available and sufficient Saviour. Calvin
agrees: there is enough in Jesus Christ to satisfy us all. “Let us then come boldly to our Lord Jesus Christ,
and He will suffice for all.”[11] Calvin’s “alls” display the inclusiveness of
the atonement without limitation.
Albert Barnes,
commenting in this verse, states:
This
language is that which naturally expresses the idea that he suffered for all
people. It is universal in its nature, and naturally conveys the idea that there
was no limitation in respect to the number of those for whom he died.[12]
Clearly, the
universal aspect is to the fore in Barnes’ exegesis, and concurs with that of
other careful exegetes, such as Calvin.
Alec Motyer in his
commentary on the prophecy of Isaiah writes,
We
all and each expresses both common culpability
and individual responsibility ... Over against the common herd, and matching
the individual need, there stands him
on whom our iniquity has been laid. By
the divine act, the Servant was the meeting point for the iniquity of us all.[13]
Motyer accepts the
exposition that “each sin of every sinner would be like a separate wound in the
heat of this man of sorrows.” Inclusivity is innate to what Isaiah says, and
Motyer brings this out very clearly. He
continues,
The
Servant is not ... one moved by personal compassion and voluntariness; he is
the provision and plan of God, who himself superintends the priestly task
(Lev.16:21) of transferring the guilt of the guilty to the head of the Servant,
giving notice that this is indeed his considered and acceptable satisfaction
for sin.[14]
The guilty are all
those deemed to be so by the law of God, namely, every son of Adam. The whole world is accountable to, guilty
before, God,[15]
so it was the whole world’s guilt that was transferred to the head of the
Servant/Saviour.[16]
DML-J was with
Calvin, Wesley, Barnes and Motyer on this point when he preached
In
view of the fact that salvation is of God and therefore supernatural, although
we cannot understand it, it holds out a hope for all. … There is literally hope
for all. ...It is God’s work, and because it is God’s
work, it is possible for all and can be offered to all. ...There is literally hope for all.”[17]
Or again,
“It
is God who sent his Son into the world, it is God who sent him to the cross, it
is God who ‘laid on him the iniquities of us all,’ Isa.53:6. It is God who has taken your sins and put
them on him and punished them in him and is offering you a free pardon; it is
God who has done it.”[18]
“Here is
‘the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world’ Jn.1:29. Here is
the one who has never sinned; here is one who is spotless; here is one who has
never broken a commandment, never defied his father. He has pleased his Father in all things and
in all ways. And, ‘God has laid on him
the iniquity of us all’ Isa.53:6.”[19]
“He
sent his only Son into this world ‘for the suffering of death … that he by the
grace of God should, taste death for every man’ Heb.2:9. God’s Son took our sins upon himself: ‘He
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all’ Isa.53:6.’”[20]
From these four
quotations from DML-J’s sermons, it is clear that his interpretation of
Isa.53:6 followed Calvin, Wesley, Henry, Barnes, and Motyer rather than Gill,
or even Owen for that matter. Owen
states, with reference to both Isa.53:6 and Jn 3:16, “God of his free grace,
has prepared a way to redeem and save his elect.”[21] Owen is interpretatively particularistic when
dealing with the Bible’s own universalistic statements.[22] But for the Doctor, hope is held out for all
because it is offered to all without exception.
Because God has sent His Son to Calvary to have the sins of all punished
in Him, a free pardon can now be offered to all. If He, the pure and spotless One, had not
taken the sins of all upon His Body on the Cross, and died for them, how then
could a free and utterly sincere offer of salvation be made to them? In His death, God’s Son, “tasted death for
every man.” Hyper Calvinists such as
John Gill state, correctly, that ‘man’ is added by the translators to help to
give the sense of the verse, and suggest that what should be added is son, or one of the brethren, not man. The reason for this is not given which begs
the question, why son or brethren, and not man?
It was “the sin of
the world” that God laid on Him, “the iniquity of us all.” DML-J clearly did not subscribe to the
restricted view of the atonement as espoused by Gill and Owen. Such a view would have hampered his
evangelistic preaching, leaving him with nothing to offer the lost. The biblical view handed him something real
to offer to real sinners – a real salvation which would become theirs on
condition of faith in Christ.
Davenant reinforces
this important Gospel point in Isa.53:6 by reference to the Church Fathers,
quoting them as saying, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ransom of
the whole world...”[23] Quoting from David Paræus (in a judgement
which he transmitted to the Synod of Dordt) the following words, “The cause and
matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of
God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race.”[24]
One looks in vain
for any treatment of this verse in Smeaton when he refers to Isa 53. He references vvs. 3, 7, 12, but makes no
reference to 53:6.[25]
It is clear from
these quotations that there is a division between those who embrace the
scholastic doctrine of limited atonement and those who follow the Scriptures,
taking them in their natural meaning. It
is also clear which interpretation DML-J prefers, and it is not that of Gill
and Owen.
[1] Parker, 1976.
[2] Apud Galatin. de Cathol. Ver. I. 10. c. 6.
p. 663, and Siphre in ib. l. 8. c. 20. p. 599.
[3] Calvin, 1956:70.
[4] Calvin, 1956:78.
[5] Calvin, 1956:81.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Calvin, 1956:82.
[8] Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the
Whole Bible. (n.d., n.p.). I have also
retained the
Formatting of the original quotation to keep the author’s emphases.
[9] Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on Isa.53:6.
[10] Rawlinson, 1906:296.
[11] Calvin, 1956:81. In his commentary on Isa.53:6, he writes, “Our
sins overwhelm us: but they are laid
on
Christ, by whom we are unburdened. Therefore, when we were perishing, and,
alienated from God,
were
hastening to hell, Christ took upon Himself the filthy depths (colluviem) of our sins, to rescue us
from
eternal destruction ...” (p.67).
[12] Barnes commentary on Isaiah, p.???
[13] Motyer, 1993:431. Formatting preserved to bring out the
author’s original emphases.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Rom.3:19.
[16] Cf. 1 Jn 5:19 and Rom.3:19.
[17] DML-J, selection #49.
[18] DML-J, selection #183.
[19] DML-J, selection #188.
[20] DML-J, selection #208.
[21] http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/an-exegetical-look-at-john-316-by-dr-c-matthew- mcmahon/
Accessed
09/01/2013.
[22] I am reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty
Dumpty, who said scornfully, "When
I use a word ... it means
just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Alice (in Wonderland) then asks "whether
you
can
make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to
be
master— that's all." He believed
that he could impart meanings to words that suited his purpose.
[23] Davenant, 1832/2006/33.
[24] Davenant, 1832/2006:35.
[25] Smeaton, 1871/1991:81, cf. 497.
No comments:
Post a Comment