The Servant of Jehovah.

        With our lack of knowledge as to how the prophets re­ceived their message, it would be foolish to be dogmatic; but it does seem probable that the prophet only grasped the full implications of his message by degrees as it was given to him, even as we only understand it by degrees as we read it. So it is more than likely that Isaiah at first thought he was fore­telling exactly that which would happen. But already in 42:1-4 there appears the enigmatic figure of the Servant, who might be taken for Israel, and is yet so different from Israel. But with the jubilant call to Israel to leave Babylon (48:20) there comes the realization that though Cyrus will do all for which he has been raised up, Israel will fail to carry out God’s Purpose (48:22).

        The Exodus from Egypt did not change Israel, and at the very Law-Mount they sinned, worshipping a calf of gold. The people whom the exile had not changed, would not be changed by the victories of Cyrus. Spiritual ends can never ultimately be attained by material means. So though Cyrus sweeps to his fore-ordained goal, there is no transformed Israel and so no transformed nature; then in 49:1 the figure of the Servant slips out of the shadows.

        The failure to realize the way in which the prophet’s revelation developed, and the contrast between the glowing visions of Isaiah and the grim realities of the return, have made many conservatives deny that “Deutero-Isaiah” is primarily a prophecy of the return from exile; instead, they have applied it to the Church. To do so is to empty the prophecy of all coherent meaning, for while many portions can be applied to the Church, it is impossible so to apply the prophecy as a whole.

        The traditional interpretation of the Servant has for many years now been denied by the vast majority of Old Testament scholars; usually he has been interpreted as collective Israel, real or ideal. This denial has not been due solely or even mainly to infidelity, as has been so often suggested, but rather to the reasonable conviction that the Servant could not be both Israel and the Messiah almost in the same breath.

        The only tenable method of combining the traditional view with the general setting of chs. 40-55 was that of Delitzsch who wrote: The idea of the Servant of Jehovah … is rooted in Israel. It is, to put it briefly and clearly, a Pyramid: its lowest basis is the whole of Israel; its middle section, Israel not merely according to the flesh but according to the spirit; its summit is the person of the Redeemer. Or to change the figure: the conception consists of two concentric circles with a common centre. The wider circle is the whole of Israel, the narrower Jeshurun (44:2), the centre Christ (An additional note in the German commentary on Isaiah by Drechsler and Hahn, 1857.).

        One of the greatest gains of recent scholarship has been the very widespread recognition that the so-called Servant Songs (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12) are a separate production from the bulk of “Deutero-Isaiah.” This does not imply that they need be by a different author. It can easily be seen that if the Songs, and in two cases the connecting link, viz. 42:5-9; 49:7-13, are omitted, there is no apparent loss in sense. The effect of this isolation is to make a personal interpretation of the Servant almost compulsory, and the only personal interpretation that really satisfies is Messianic.

        Professor North in his standard book shows that Continental scholars have long been unhappy about the identification of the Servant with Israel, literal or ideal, but that the long list of individuals with whom he has been identified is equally un­satisfactory. We agree with him that only a Messianic figure in which kingly, priestly and prophetic traits are all blended does justice to the language of the Servant Songs.

        The first Song contrasts the Servant’s methods of action with those of the world, and even of Israel (41:15f). Note carefully the R.V. mg. in 42:3f.

        The second gives a picture of the Servant conscious of the greatness of his task (ver. 6), but wearied by his long wait (ver. 4). Though fully fitted for the work, the sword is still in the scabbard, the arrow in the quiver. Here we have a picture of what the long “hidden years” in Nazareth must have meant to our Lord (cf. Luke 2:49).

        In 50:4-9 we are introduced to the Servant in God’s school, a hard school in which he was to endure “the con­tradiction of sinners.” In spite of the attractive applicability of ver. 6, it is once again the years in Nazareth (cf. Heb. 2:10, etc.) rather than the Passion that are under consideration.

        Finally we have a vision of the perfect accomplishment of the Servant’s work. It is indeed inadequate in its foreseeing of the resurrection, but otherwise it is the most perfect picture of our Lord’s atoning work in Scripture (For detailed study see David Baron: The Servant of Jehovah.).

        And so Zion, broken-hearted and despondent through the failure of the return, is transformed by the Servant; her Maker becomes her Husband, and the shame of her youth is forgotten.