He existed, would be poor, even “miserable”.
Some scholars argue this passage is areference to the Messiah’s fallen heritage, or, more specifically, to his ancestry from the“sterile house” of David.
But it seems also to imply something about the generation to whichhe would be born; that is, he would walk among, and minister to, a spiritually dry people whocould no more see His destiny as the redeemer of the world than they could their own sin.And, as we see in the New Testament, this is certainly true. Israel expected the Messiah toshow himself in splendor and extravagance when, in fact, He came as quite the opposite,unsightly in form and lowly in status.
Some would argue the opposite, however, suggestingthe Messiah was actually perfect in human form and pleasant to the eye.
The “uncomliness”spoken of in Isaiah, according to proponents of this view, refers instead to the moral“loveliness” exhibited by the Messiah which would be lost on those who preferred their ownsinfulness to the teachings of the Chosen One.
This view pays no homage to the theme of lowliness and humilityfound throughoutIsaiah’s prophecy of the coming Messiah. There is no indication in Isaiah’s description thatthe Chosen One would be desirable in
way, as the word used in Isa. 53:2, “hâdâr”, meansliterally “ornament or splendor:--beauty, comeliness, excellency, glorious, glory, goodly,
Commentary on Isaiah
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications, 1923), 507.
H. A. Ironside,
Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah
(New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc, 1952),298-299).