666 SOKROW, MAN OF SORROWS
SORROW, MAN OF SORROWS
Objection has been taken (e.g. by Cheyne, G. A. Smith, Skinner, Workman) to the rendering ' sorrows,' ' pains ' being preferred in this verse and the next as a nearer parallel to ''hn ('sickness' rather than ' grief). But the Oxford Heb. Lex. gives many instances of both the vb. and noun as referring to mental pain, and classes this passage under that head. While allowing that the picture in Isaiah is primarily of physical suflfer- ing, we may without hesitation retain the familiar rendering of AV and RV.
The title is never applied to Christ in the NT. It belongs, in fact, to popular rather than to technical phraseology, expressing in picturesque form what the theologian means by speaking of Christ as the 'Suffering Servant of Jehovah.' Either phrase implies equally that the prophecy of Is 53 was in a true sense fulfilled in Him. What- ever may have been the j^rimary historical bearing of that passage, it is generally admitted that in the time of Christ there was no expectation of a suffer- ing Messiah. The indications of the Gospels and Acts agree completely with the evidence of pre- Christian Jewish literature. ' The idea of the Messiah's sufferings is not found in any Jewish document up to the close of the first century' (Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 123). ' Man of Sorrows ' would have been the last title to have caught the popular imagination of that age. ' Son of David ' expressed the contemporary hopes of what the Messiah was to be. That the one title has been entirely displaced by the other is signifi- cant. The one is national, more or less materialistic, pointing to an earthly kingdom. The other ex- presses the universal attraction of Christ, His spiritual empire over the hearts of men, and the means by which His influence has been won. See, further, art. Messiah.
2. The nature of the sorrows of Christ. — Though, as noted above, the phrase 'Man of Sorrows' may be retained as the translation of Is 53^, there can be little doubt that the general picture of the passage in its literal sense is of one visited with the extreme of physical suffering, a Job ; many see in it the description of a leper, as in Ps 88. If the view is correct that it was never intended to apply to an individual, but was typical of the nation, or of part of it, it will none the less remain true that the figure the writer has chosen is that of bodily sickness. The sorrows of Christ were not of this nature, nor was His appearance unattractive, still less repulsive, as of one suffering from a loathsome disease. In the Gospels but little stress is laid on the physical sufferings even of the last days. He Himself expressly deprecates so doing (Lk 23^). He once refers to the privations of His life (Lk 9^^) in order to check one who had not counted the cost of discipleship. A single word from the Cross (Jn 19^^) has to do with His bodily needs. Where the thought of His OAvn sufferings comes to His mind, the impression we have is of spiritual sorrow (Mk 10*- U^ IS^^, Lk 125», Jn 122^), and commentators of all schools have connected this sorrow with His contact and conflict with sin. He sighs at the presence of the deaf and dumb man (Mk 7^^). When face to face Avith death, He is moved with sympathetic compassion (Lk 7'*) ; He groans in spirit, is troubled, and weeps (Jn IP^). The underlying thought in these passages seems to be His sense of what lies behind human sufliering. So it is different degrees of sin at which His sorrow is implied or expressed ; — dulness, unbelief, or hardness of heart in the disciples (Mt 16^ Mk 8^1 919 1014 1427- 37^ Lk 2238, Jn 149) ._the wilful blind- ness and opposition of His countrymen (Mk 3^ 6" 8^^ Lk 13'^). Specially significant are the laments over Jerusalem (Mt 23"', Lk 19«). He is grieved at ingratitude (Lk 17"), at lack of hospitality (Lk 7**), at the profanation of the Temple (Mt 2V^), above all, at the treachery of Judas (Mt 262«, Jn I32'). He feels sorrowful compassion over the multitude
Avitliout a shepherd (Mt 9^, Mk 6^*). On the other hand, His joy is specially mentioned at the con- quest or removal of sin (Mt 18^^ Lk lO^i 15^). A study of these passages will show the sense in which He was a Man of Sorrows. On the one hand. He was brought into a relation to sin from which His nature shrank, and which even seemed at its climax to lead to a sejjaration from God (Mk 15^). On the other hand, in His conflict against sin He was spiritually alone. He knew more clearly than any the nature of sin and its results. He saw what man might be if he chose, and what in fact he was. He realized every hour the tragic irony of the situation, that He had come to His own and they would not receive Him. The horror of His rejec- tion by His countrymen lay not so much in the suffering it implied for Himself, as in their own loss of opportunity. Is 53 was profoundly true. Men did not perceive or desire the beauty of His holiness. They despised and rejected His message ; they hid their face from Him because they could not bear to look on the splendour of the goodness and love He came to reveal.*