Bring a sword...but don't use it. Question regarden Garden of Gethsemane Arrest

[Stravinsk]

People who have read through some of my posts here know I don't trust Luke's Gospel as reliable, but I want to pose this question to see if anyone can give a logical and reasonable answer to what I see as another blaring inconsistency that blurs the story:
In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 26, right before Yeshua is arrested two interesting bits of dialogue take place. I refer to the following, with the highlights for emphasis:




Matthew 26:47 -

---

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

---

Not once, but twice, Yeshua speaks against the use of violence and weapons either in His aid or to subdue Him. The first time in general terms (those who draw the sword will die by the sword), and the second time to the band of men carrying weapons to arrest him. There is no need for it, for either his friends (as He could call on legions of Angels to protect Him), or for the men there to arrest Him (as He has never presented a physical threat that would warrant it).

So then, given this backdrop, can anyone explain why Luke's Gospel has Yeshua actually instructing the disciples to get swords in preparation for His arrest and even approves when they show Him two swords:




Luke 22: 35

---

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

---

Do you think the disciples might have been just a tad bit confused at the lecture that was to follow? I know as a reader, I find it perplexing - unless of course the Gospel according to Luke is unreliable and full of corruptions.

 

[Alithis]

quite simply .. i do not believe it was a sword in the sense of what we would typical picture one to be -ie a weapon used by a soldier for warfare .
but a long knife .. probably the same one he used for cutting bread and gutting fish (being he was a fisherman ) .

the other point iv always noted is that if he drew a full length sword and swung it at the man .. it would have done a lot more then cut his ear , so it makes more sense he drew a long knife and slashed at the man .., and thus cut off part of his ear .
just in the realms of reasoning -(along with the translation of the word ) it has always made more sense .
i have always had my doubts that the romans would have let people roam about unchallenged carrying full military style swords of the day.

 

[Stravinsk]

quite simply .. i do not believe it was a sword in the sense of what we would typical picture one to be -ie a weapon used by a soldier for warfare .
but a long knife .. probably the same one he used for cutting bread and gutting fish (being he was a fisherman ) .

the other point iv always noted is that if he drew a full length sword and swung it at the man .. it would have done a lot more then cut his ear , so it makes more sense he drew a long knife and slashed at the man .., and thus cut off part of his ear .
just in the realms of reasoning -(along with the translation of the word ) it has always made more sense .
i have always had my doubts that the romans would have let people roam about unchallenged carrying full military style swords of the day.

Thanks for replying. Sorry, I laughed, not sure I need to explain that, lol.

 

[tango]

Interesting question, with some interesting thoughts.

Since Jesus didn't call for more swords and didn't tell his disciples not to bring swords at all (when either would have been valid responses to them having two swords), we can assume that the swords served some purpose. But as you say the purpose was clearly not to use them as weapons. So since Jesus told his disciples to get hold of swords, said that two was sufficient, but then told them not to wield the swords as weapons, the swords obviously had a purpose beyond what is readily apparent.

I think the key is that "he was numbered with the transgressors". I've heard it said (and it seems reasonable, although I haven't taken the time to verify it for myself) that people weren't allowed to just walk around with swords. But if Jesus was to be numbered with the transgressors then he had to be around people who had broken the law. If the disciples (presumably two of them, given there were two swords) were carrying illegal weapons they would have been deemed transgressors, and therefore "he was numbered with the transgressors" would be fulfilled, just as Jesus said it would be.

So maybe the purpose of the swords was nothing more than to make sure Jesus, who himself was innocent, was found with people who had broken at least one local law.

 

[Stravinsk]

Interesting question, with some interesting thoughts.

Since Jesus didn't call for more swords and didn't tell his disciples not to bring swords at all (when either would have been valid responses to them having two swords), we can assume that the swords served some purpose. But as you say the purpose was clearly not to use them as weapons. So since Jesus told his disciples to get hold of swords, said that two was sufficient, but then told them not to wield the swords as weapons, the swords obviously had a purpose beyond what is readily apparent.

I think the key is that "he was numbered with the transgressors". I've heard it said (and it seems reasonable, although I haven't taken the time to verify it for myself) that people weren't allowed to just walk around with swords. But if Jesus was to be numbered with the transgressors then he had to be around people who had broken the law. If the disciples (presumably two of them, given there were two swords) were carrying illegal weapons they would have been deemed transgressors, and therefore "he was numbered with the transgressors" would be fulfilled, just as Jesus said it would be.

So maybe the purpose of the swords was nothing more than to make sure Jesus, who himself was innocent, was found with people who had broken at least one local law.

Thanks for the reply. However, I must say that Christ being numbered with transgressors really finds its fulfillment with Him being imprisoned and on trial before the State, not in some of His disciples carrying swords or cutting off an ear. The centerpiece of this fulfillment would be the trial and the people asking for the release of a known murderer - Barabbas - in place of an innocent man.

 

[tango]

Thanks for the reply. However, I must say that Christ being numbered with transgressors really finds its fulfillment with Him being imprisoned and on trial before the State, not in some of His disciples carrying swords or cutting off an ear. The centerpiece of this fulfillment would be the trial and the people asking for the release of a known murderer - Barabbas - in place of an innocent man.

That's certainly one possible way of fulfilment, and being crucified between two criminals would also appear to count. But obviously there was some purpose to the swords or Jesus wouldn't have been telling the disciples to get them, and indeed if they weren't to use the swords we have to wonder why he didn't tell them to leave them behind.

Since Jesus didn't present a physical threat and spoke against the use of weapons, it's hard to come up with anything specific. But if Jesus is essentially asking "why do you come with all these weapons to arrest me when I'd have come peacefully?" and the crowd could point to the disciples with swords and say "because those guys have big knives" you maybe have a little more sense of prophetic fulfilment right there and then.

Arguably cutting off someone's ear (whether with a sword as we'd understand it, a short sword, or something more like a carving knife) means that the disciple concerned immediately became "a transgressor", but Jesus responding by healing the man he struck effectively got the disciple off the hook.

Maybe "he was numbered among the transgressors" did tick multiple boxes - he was found with men carrying weapons and he was crucified between two criminals. I'm not sure the crowd wanting Barabbas released instead of him really counts because public perception of guilt isn't the same as actual guilt (as even a cursory glance over Faceache will demonstrate)

 

[Stravinsk]

That's certainly one possible way of fulfilment, and being crucified between two criminals would also appear to count. But obviously there was some purpose to the swords or Jesus wouldn't have been telling the disciples to get them, and indeed if they weren't to use the swords we have to wonder why he didn't tell them to leave them behind.

Since Jesus didn't present a physical threat and spoke against the use of weapons, it's hard to come up with anything specific. But if Jesus is essentially asking "why do you come with all these weapons to arrest me when I'd have come peacefully?" and the crowd could point to the disciples with swords and say "because those guys have big knives" you maybe have a little more sense of prophetic fulfilment right there and then.

Arguably cutting off someone's ear (whether with a sword as we'd understand it, a short sword, or something more like a carving knife) means that the disciple concerned immediately became "a transgressor", but Jesus responding by healing the man he struck effectively got the disciple off the hook.

Maybe "he was numbered among the transgressors" did tick multiple boxes - he was found with men carrying weapons and he was crucified between two criminals. I'm not sure the crowd wanting Barabbas released instead of him really counts because public perception of guilt isn't the same as actual guilt (as even a cursory glance over Faceache will demonstrate)

As you say, the fulfillment of "numbered with the transgressors" could fit in numerous scenarios, and the two most obvious examples I see are the trial and the release of Barabbas(the crowd's judgement indicates public perception here), and the crucifixion between two criminals.

Putting oneself in the shoes of a disciple, in Luke's gospel. Our Lord and Savior has just announced that His time has come, that He will be numbered with the transgressors, so go and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak. Someone says "here are two swords" and He responds "that is enough!".

What picture does this paint in the mind of a follower? There's a fight coming, we need weapons! It paints the picture of resistance - not submission nor can I imagine that any of them would have the slightest inclination that cutting off someone's ear or even having a sword would fit "being numbered with the transgressors".

Christ is their moral teacher who preached love and non-violence. Now all of a sudden He needs his followers to be armed because some people are coming for Him? It fits with what some of them wanted - Peter for example - NOT to go to the cross, NOT to be crucified - to resist and be installed as their earthly King. But Christ says this is of the devil.

Now, moving to Matthew - the same Christ who told them to sell their cloaks to get a sword, and approves of a couple of swords for the coming confrontation lectures BOTH parties for using or wielding them! If I were a disciple...I'd be like "wha...?! you just told us to get swords!! what the..."

It just doesn't fit. On multiple levels.

 

[tango]

As you say, the fulfillment of "numbered with the transgressors" could fit in numerous scenarios, and the two most obvious examples I see are the trial and the release of Barabbas(the crowd's judgement indicates public perception here), and the crucifixion between two criminals.

Putting oneself in the shoes of a disciple, in Luke's gospel. Our Lord and Savior has just announced that His time has come, that He will be numbered with the transgressors, so go and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak. Someone says "here are two swords" and He responds "that is enough!".

What picture does this paint in the mind of a follower? There's a fight coming, we need weapons! It paints the picture of resistance - not submission nor can I imagine that any of them would have the slightest inclination that cutting off someone's ear or even having a sword would fit "being numbered with the transgressors".

Christ is their moral teacher who preached love and non-violence. Now all of a sudden He needs his followers to be armed because some people are coming for Him? It fits with what some of them wanted - Peter for example - NOT to go to the cross, NOT to be crucified - to resist and be installed as their earthly King. But Christ says this is of the devil.

Now, moving to Matthew - the same Christ who told them to sell their cloaks to get a sword, and approves of a couple of swords for the coming confrontation lectures BOTH parties for using or wielding them! If I were a disciple...I'd be like "wha...?! you just told us to get swords!! what the..."

It just doesn't fit. On multiple levels.

Indeed, it doesn't seem to make sense. Which is why I can't help think the explanation that makes the most sense is that Christ had to be "numbered among the transgressors" without actually being a transgressor himself.

If he had told the disciples to bring swords but not to use them it's hard to see anybody making any sense of that. But to tell them to get swords, to comment that two swords were enough (not telling them they needed more swords, or to leave one or both of them behind for now) suggests that two swords served the purpose. And to be "numbered among the transgressors" (in the plural sense) required two people to have swords and no more. One person wouldn't be "transgressors" in the plural, three was more than required.

I don't suppose the disciples would have figured that they were to be the transgressors among whom Jesus would be numbered. But they wouldn't need to understand that to actually be the transgressors. There were a few times when Jesus essentially asked the disciples "you guys still don't quite get it, do you?". Maybe they still didn't get it. Maybe Jesus was teaching them that even when you have a weapon you don't necessarily need to use it.

 

[Alithis]

Thanks for replying. Sorry, I laughed, not sure I need to explain that, lol.

explain away .. i dont get it . i was just giving as neutral reply as i could

 

[Stravinsk]

quite simply .. i do not believe it was a sword in the sense of what we would typical picture one to be -ie a weapon used by a soldier for warfare .
but a long knife .. probably the same one he used for cutting bread and gutting fish (being he was a fisherman ) .

the other point iv always noted is that if he drew a full length sword and swung it at the man .. it would have done a lot more then cut his ear , so it makes more sense he drew a long knife and slashed at the man .., and thus cut off part of his ear .
just in the realms of reasoning -(along with the translation of the word ) it has always made more sense .
i have always had my doubts that the romans would have let people roam about unchallenged carrying full military style swords of the day.

Thanks for replying. Sorry, I laughed, not sure I need to explain that, lol.

explain away .. i dont get it . i was just giving as neutral reply as i could

Please don't take it personal. I'm not laughing at you, just at the mindset. I don't share it. I did once, but not anymore.

Let me explain. You believe, as part of your faith - that it is necessary to believe the whole bible is the "word of God". If you doubt, you are in trouble. Maybe you could slip off the straight and narrow as you see it, and that could have eternal consequences, right? So quite necessarily, one must delve into the realm of apologetics to explain or interpret logical inconsistencies. That is fine. I've read plenty of apologetics and some of them are really good at putting stuff together, others, not so much.

However, I don't arrive at truth the same way a strictly religious person would. I say that about any religious person who has faith in a revealed religion be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity or any other religion or sect thereof who treats certain writings as Inspired Scripture. I'll read the text, and if someone has an explanation to something that doesn't work, then perhaps I'll consider it - however -

I'll consider it not because I want it to be true, but because it has the possibility of being so. This difference is key.

I'm afraid that given the context of the story, the explanation that one would have to sell their cloak for a bread knife so that they can be prepared for the upcoming Trial in which the Hour of the Messiah has come seems rather ridiculous to me. I find it humorous. I can do that without fear because I don't start with the same basis of faith (that all the books of the bible are completely inspired and error free).

 

[Alithis]

to view it your way i have to see an inconsistancy though.
i dont.
i see two kingdoms. where swords are vastly different.one carnal one spiritual.
so,no dilemma at all.
my reaction was due to some who use these versus to justify ,well,all kinds of things from a carnal mindset.the mind of the flesh.
but in the mibd of the spirit it IS perfect sense.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes

 

[hill]

Please don't take it personal. I'm not laughing at you, just at the mindset. I don't share it. I did once, but not anymore.

Let me explain. You believe, as part of your faith - that it is necessary to believe the whole bible is the "word of God". If you doubt, you are in trouble. Maybe you could slip off the straight and narrow as you see it, and that could have eternal consequences, right? ......snip.......

(1st post -)
one might alternatively believe/be assured that a creator - grand enough to fling existence into existence .... fortelling with precision his linage, method of death centuries prior to crucifiction's implementation, birth place, the day he'd ride into Jerusalem etc - that he would then be so limp wristed that the message necessary to lead to salvation would end up being fraught with error(s) and/or excess inclusions - ie; that somehow - one 'defective book' could slip by him - as though juggling the whole of existence was just a tad too much for him. Sure - he could inspire many writers over millennia - & he could inspire those who'd tackle what to include ... but somehow he ran out of juice when it came to assuring one book or more got in or stayed out.
Does one 'have to believe' this or that? Or is the only thing 'unpardonable' - simply accrediting the work of God, to Satan.
I suppose if you toss out this book, & that book .... or heck even ½ of the books, because you feel it was just the ramblings of some nice fellow and not really meant to be part of any flawlessly / divinely inspired collection - that "this book doesn't count" proclamation doesn't pass the 'unpardonable' muster. So ... that would mean we're good to go.
"Slip off the straight & narrow"? Don't Christians make a daily trek off the straight & narrow even without doubting the veracity of any entire book in the Bible? Yes of course we do. And when we 'doubt' - it 'may' lead to trouble. It's a cost-benefit analysis. If i doubt chain smoking tobacco will hurt me - because it hasn't been too bad so far - it's in part because I enjoy the benefit - & i'm either willing to suffer/ignore consequences - or im lacking willpower.
There are lots of parts of scripture that trouble people. What's the cost-benefit analysis of the part folks want to toss.
Anyway - sorry if that derails the OP's theme. Please forgive if that's too OT.

.

 

[Rens]

People who have read through some of my posts here know I don't trust Luke's Gospel as reliable, but I want to pose this question to see if anyone can give a logical and reasonable answer to what I see as another blaring inconsistency that blurs the story:
In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 26, right before Yeshua is arrested two interesting bits of dialogue take place. I refer to the following, with the highlights for emphasis:




Matthew 26:47 -

---

While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

---

Not once, but twice, Yeshua speaks against the use of violence and weapons either in His aid or to subdue Him. The first time in general terms (those who draw the sword will die by the sword), and the second time to the band of men carrying weapons to arrest him. There is no need for it, for either his friends (as He could call on legions of Angels to protect Him), or for the men there to arrest Him (as He has never presented a physical threat that would warrant it).

So then, given this backdrop, can anyone explain why Luke's Gospel has Yeshua actually instructing the disciples to get swords in preparation for His arrest and even approves when they show Him two swords:




Luke 22: 35

---

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

---

Do you think the disciples might have been just a tad bit confused at the lecture that was to follow? I know as a reader, I find it perplexing - unless of course the Gospel according to Luke is unreliable and full of corruptions.

Not to use it, but maybe to scare them off as a protection of themselves?

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=216]Stravinsk[/MENTION]

here are two swords] It was a last instance of the stolid literalism by which they had so often vexed our Lord (Mat 16:6-12). As though He could have been thinking of two miserable swords, such as poor Galilaean pilgrims took to defend themselves from wild beasts or robbers; and as though two would be of any use against a world in arms ! It is strange that St Chrysostom should suppose ‘knives’ to be intended. This was the verse quoted by Boniface VIII., in his famous Bull Unam sanctam, to prove his possession of both secular and spiritual power !

And he said unto them, It is enough] Not of course meaning that two swords were enough, but sadly declining to enter into the matter any further, and leaving them to meditate on His words. The formula was one sometimes used to waive a subject; comp. 1Ma 2:33. See p. 384. “It is a sigh of the God-man over all violent measures meant to further His cause.”
(source: The Cambridge Bible Commentary)

 

[tango]

One interesting theory I heard related to the prophecy of Is 53:12, specifically "he was numbered with the transgressors". This could relate to being crucified between two thieves, and could also relate to being found in the presence of two men carrying swords when carrying swords was prohibited to anyone except a Roman soldier. If there was one sword there would only be one transgressor, but two swords would mean two transgressors. Those who came to arrest Jesus most likely didn't care - they wanted their man and they got him.

It's the best explanation I've heard so far for why swords were desirable but weren't to be used.

 

[Stravinsk]

One interesting theory I heard related to the prophecy of Is 53:12, specifically "he was numbered with the transgressors". This could relate to being crucified between two thieves, and could also relate to being found in the presence of two men carrying swords when carrying swords was prohibited to anyone except a Roman soldier. If there was one sword there would only be one transgressor, but two swords would mean two transgressors. Those who came to arrest Jesus most likely didn't care - they wanted their man and they got him.

It's the best explanation I've heard so far for why swords were desirable but weren't to be used.

Testing the theory:

"Transgression" in this context is anything that happens to violate a local, community or otherwise man made law.

If the Isaiah passage is referring to laws of this sort, and not a more universal, or, to be specific - law coded in Torah, then it should be able to be applied anywhere and make sense.

In this context, the persons with Yeshua could be "transgressors" by violating any law by any State or government of any time. Of course this would include things such as holding a job or business in a place like Nazi Germany under Hitler's rule(if you are Jewish). Once the transgression becomes merely a means to describe something unlawful from a State's perspective - it loses it's ability to identify sin. Sin becomes something that is only looked at in terms of man made, or local law.

Looked at another way -

The interpretation also makes Yeshua look like a hypocrite only concerned with fulfilling prophecy at whatever cost. "Oh my - there's that Isaiah passage to think of...I've got to be 'numbered with the transgressors'. Hmm. Ok...you -and you! Sell your cloaks if you don't have a sword. Oh - you have 2 swords, that is enough. Lets go make prophetic fulfillment and history!"

" Later - I'm going to scorn the sword bearer for actually using the sword I asked him to make sure he had. It was all for prophecy fulfillment, didn't you know? "

 

[tango]

Testing the theory:

"Transgression" in this context is anything that happens to violate a local, community or otherwise man made law.

If the Isaiah passage is referring to laws of this sort, and not a more universal, or, to be specific - law coded in Torah, then it should be able to be applied anywhere and make sense.

In this context, the persons with Yeshua could be "transgressors" by violating any law by any State or government of any time. Of course this would include things such as holding a job or business in a place like Nazi Germany under Hitler's rule(if you are Jewish). Once the transgression becomes merely a means to describe something unlawful from a State's perspective - it loses it's ability to identify sin. Sin becomes something that is only looked at in terms of man made, or local law.

Looked at another way -

The interpretation also makes Yeshua look like a hypocrite only concerned with fulfilling prophecy at whatever cost. "Oh my - there's that Isaiah passage to think of...I've got to be 'numbered with the transgressors'. Hmm. Ok...you -and you! Sell your cloaks if you don't have a sword. Oh - you have 2 swords, that is enough. Lets go make prophetic fulfillment and history!"

" Later - I'm going to scorn the sword bearer for actually using the sword I asked him to make sure he had. It was all for prophecy fulfillment, didn't you know? "

Perhaps "transgressors" in this context could also mean people who were willing to take up arms against the agents of justice, effectively taking the law into their own hands rather than let Jesus face his fate? It could refer to the simple act of carrying a sword but, as you say, it does potentially end up leaving the term "transgressors" somewhat trivialised. That said if Jesus had to be "numbered with the transgressors" then if he failed to fulfill the prophecy it would leave a permanent blotch on his record of satisfying every single prophecy about him. Probably better to make it happen one way or another rather than have endless questions about how he managed to fulfill every single prophecy, bar one.

 

[Stravinsk]

Perhaps "transgressors" in this context could also mean people who were willing to take up arms against the agents of justice, effectively taking the law into their own hands rather than let Jesus face his fate? It could refer to the simple act of carrying a sword but, as you say, it does potentially end up leaving the term "transgressors" somewhat trivialised. That said if Jesus had to be "numbered with the transgressors" then if he failed to fulfill the prophecy it would leave a permanent blotch on his record of satisfying every single prophecy about him. Probably better to make it happen one way or another rather than have endless questions about how he managed to fulfill every single prophecy, bar one.

One of the problems of taking a passage out of context and using it as a proof text is that the context can easily be forgotten when applying it to possible interpretations. Regarding being "numbered with the transgressors", the Isaiah passage should be read at least from the chapter beginning. Once one does so, it becomes clear that the import of verse 12 is Yeshua on the cross, crucified next to two thieves, and his burial. I encourage you to read Isaiah 53 for yourself to prove this.