And they made his grave with the wicked ones,
And with a rich man in his death (literally ‘deaths').
Although he had done no violence,
Neither was any deceit in his mouth.'
The wicked and the rich are often looked at synonymously (compare Psalms 52:7). The rich tended to behave wickedly, and especially dishonestly and deceitfully (Micah 6:12). That is regularly how they became and stayed rich (compare Proverbs 18:23; Proverbs 28:6; Proverbs 28:20; Jeremiah 17:11). Thus the idea here is that although He would be non-violent and without deceit He would be treated as though He was guilty of both violence and deceit by being placed in His grave alongside wicked people. Indeed it would include being in the grave of ‘a rich man', possibly signifying here someone excessively wicked. As it would not seemingly be possible for someone both to have his grave with the wicked, and also with a rich man, (the emphasised ideas being slightly different), what is primarily intended is that He will be numbered among all that is sinful. His burial will be of One Who is seen as summing up in Himself every kind of wickedness.
Thus He would be identified with both the most outwardly and openly sinful of men and with the most deceitful and blameworthy, the rich, in His death, and He Who had been characterised by poverty, such an idea containing some idea of virtue, would find Himself placed in His death with ‘a rich man', because even that amount of virtue was denied Him. The rich man would be honoured by his fellows but hated by the majority. So this added to His shame. That God actually arranged that He was laid in a godly rich man's grave was one of those unexpected extra fulfilments of prophecy that so often occur.
This connecting of the twin ideas of being laid both with the extremely wicked and with the rich, both of whom would be despised by the majority and seen as deserving of God's retribution (compare Jesus' story of ‘the rich man' which also applies to the term rich the idea of one deserving of judgment - Luke 16:19), is a further example of the way in which the writer is determined to apply to the One described here the totality of the miseries and condemnations that could be applied, thus drawing on all possible ways of describing His suffering and humiliation
The plural for deaths may be emphasising the fact of His death, He really died. Or that it was an extreme and dreadful death. Or it may be distinguishing His death as something special. But plurals of this nature with some special kind of significance are quite common.
So the verdict of the court was ‘wicked and deceitful'. The verdict of God was, ‘He had done no violence neither was any deceit found in His mouth'. The latter phrase gains deeply in significance when we remember that Isaiah was very conscious of the deceitfulness of his own mouth (Isaiah 6:5). And Jesus Himself saw sins of the mouth as so heinous that He said all judgment would be based on them (Matthew 12:37). So we are justified in seeing here the suggestion that the Servant was sinless.