The Pulpit Commentary — Isaiah — Volume 2 — Section 284

who are now engaged in Christ's service-to whom he bas committed any trnste. The question is sometimes discussed, in view of the notion of apostolical succession, whether a man who is morally bad can officially communicate Divine grace. We do not venture an opinion on such a question, but we do say that, to right feeling men and women, the connection between personal wickedness and pious work is offensive and distressing. Our souls revolt from the association of the two things, and respond to the demand of the text for personal purity in all who attempt to do God's work in the world. Two things may be dwelt on. I. CLEANNESS AS HARMONY WITIT OUR WORK. we seek for harmony everywhere. In arranging colours of dress or fittings of house. In the relation of man's profession and his conduct; between a man's work and the spirit in which he does it. Broken harmony is unpleasing to us. Clean work calls for clean hands. Now, God's work, whatever form it takes, is holy work; and we never undertake it aright, save as due impressions of its holiness rest upon us. God himself is most holy. His gospel most holy. Immortal souls, as objects of his redeeming love, most holy. The Word that brings healing and life most holy. And, therefore, everybody who comes into rela.tion with these Divine persons and things ought to be toned in harmony with them. Open how this presses on us the importance of spiritual culture. II. CLEANNESS AB FITNESS FOR OUR WORK, AND POWER IN DOING IT. It is, in fact, our endowment. We often think of holiness as quality, but we need to discern that it is power, and our best power; the feather that wings our arrow; the nerve-force that gives energy to our blow; the mesmeric influence before which even stern, hard souls must yield. The pure do the best work in the world for God. Saintly souls are almost almighty.-R. T. Ver. 14.-Surprise at the appearance of GoO:s Servant. Whatever may be the immediate and historical reference of this term" servant," of this we may feel quite sure- the full reference must be to Messiah, and to the Lord Jesus Christ as Messiah. Now, it is certainly singular that no trustworthy traces of the appearance of our Lord have come down to u~. Everybody may imagine for himself what were the featur~s and expression of his Divine Master; and it is better that our free imaginations should have no limitations to the representation of any artistic genius. We remember in an exhibition observin~ a number of paintings of the thorn-crowned head. The faces of our Lord precisely differed according as the artist was Spanish, Italian, or Eoglish, or had made the uncertain attempt of creating a face of Jewish type. All that Scripture asserts is that, so far as face and form were concerned, there was nothing arresting about Christ; you might have passed him by as a common man. It is even suggested that, as with his servant Paul, men might have rudely said that hi~ "bodily presence was contemptible." Dean Plumptre remarks," These words(ofver.14) conflict strangely with the type of pure and holy beauty with which Christian art has made us familiar as its ideal of the Son of man. It has to be noted, however, that the earlier forms of that art, prior to the time of Constantine, and, in some cases, later, represented the Christ as worn, emaciated, with hardly any touch of earthly comeliness; and that it is at least possible that the beauty may have been of expressioa rather than of feature or complexion." I. WHAT MEsSLI.H WAS-IN FACT. In no way striking. Not aristocratic-looking, or nandsome, or big. Just a man, simple, undistinguished-looking. Dekker, one of our early English poets, says- " The best of men thnt e'er wore earth about him was a sufferer, A soft, meek, pntient, humble, tranquil spirit, The first true gentleman that ever breathed." n. WHAT MESSIAH WAS-CONTRARY TO EXPECTATION. Jewish hopes fashion a hero- king, a patriot like Judas Maccabreu~, a restorer of David's line of kings. Instead, he was a simple Man, who lived a life; a Sufferer who bore a burden of peculiar sorrows; a Man who seemed to end his life in failure and shame. III. WIIY WAS MESSIAH THUS DIFFERENT TO ALL EXPECTATION OF HIM? Because men are so enslaved to the literal, the temporal, the earthly. There was uothing in the Man to e.ttract, because God would have us feel the attractions of tho Divine Saviour, -R.T.  294 THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ISA.IA.H. [oH. LIII. 1-12.