Peter Kirby

Duhm in the nineteenth century isolated four blocks of Isaiah and labeled them as "servant songs." They are 42:1-4, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, and 52:13-53:12. Treves points out that that they are not really "songs," nor are they necessarily to be severed from the context, nor should the speaker and the servant be assumed the same in all four. The last passage in particular has inspired a lot of controversy for centuries.

Isaiah 52
13: Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
14: As many were astonished at him -- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men --
15: so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand.
Isaiah 53
1: Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2: For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
3: He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7: He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8: By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
9: And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10: Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;
11: he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.
12: Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

William J. Dumbrell writes: "What follows [in Isaiah, commencing with 52:13] is a commentary explaining how this return has been achieved, namely through the ministry of the servant who has suffered so extremely, 52:13-53:12. The disfigured servant whose ministry was nonetheless so effective is presented in 52:13-15. Then in 53:1-9 we seem to be confronted by the confession of the Gentile kings of 52:15 who stand astonished at the new Exodus and restoration, followed by a prophetic (vv. 10-11) and a divine (v. 12) assessment of the servant's ministry. What is clear is that it has been the servant's ministry which has made possible this great change involving the return of God's people to his city. The confession of the kings thus bears eloquent testimony to the eschatology of 2:2-4." (Tyndale Bulletin 36 [1985], p. 126)

Richard J. Clifford writes: "Some observations can be made regarding the passage. Elsewhere in Second Isaiah, the nations are onlookers, the chorus rather than the protagonist. Hence, those whose sins are borne are likely the Israelites, not the nations. Secondly, the sins the servant has borne are not only the sinful acts of others but their consequences; Hebrew words for sin can designate both the act and its unhappy consequences. The ancestors have sinned, and the exiles are bearing the consequences. Now, however, Israel is invited back into existence through the new Exodus from Babylon to Zion. Many exiles were unwilling to undertake the journey. But as long as some of the people make the journey, the servant (and those allied with him), Israel comes into existence. 'The many' who did not make the journey exist as Israel once more because of the servant's obedient act. When they see what the servant has done for them, they cry out that he has borne their sins, i.e., taken away the evil consequences of their refusal to go in the new Exodus. It is noteworthy that the servant's reward is life in the holy land (53:11-12; cf. 9:3). As long as the servant does the act, the whole people live again. The above interpretation is tentative, but it does have the merit of staying within OT categories." ("Second Isaiah" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary)

John Scullion writes: "How then is this fourth song to be interpreted? The servant signifies, is a symbol of, Israel in history and captive Israel. Israel will recognize herself in the persecuted, suffering, sick man, just as she had recognized herself in the words of Isaiah of the 8th century: 'A, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, . . . The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and bleeding wounds; they are not pressed out, or bound up, or softened with oil.' (Isa. 1:4-6)." (Isaiah 40-66, p. 122)

Walter Brueggemann writes: "First, there is no doubt that the poem is to be understood in the context of the Isaiah tradition. Insofar as the servant is Israel--a common assumption of Jewish interpretation--we see that the theme of humiliation and exaltation serves the Isaiah rendering of Israel, for Israel in this literature is exactly the humiliated (exiled) people who by the powerful intervention of Yahweh is about to become the exalted (restored) people of Zion. Thus the drama is the drama of Israel and more specifically of Jerusalem, the characteristic subject of this poetry." (Isaiah 40-66, p. 143)

Walter Brueggemann continues: "Second, although it is clear that this poetry does not in any first instance have Jesus on its horizon, it is equally clear that the church, from the outset, has found this poetry a poignant and generative way to consider Jesus, wherein humiliation equals crucifixion and exaltation equals resurrection and ascension." (Isaiah 40-66, p. 143)

John Scullion writes: "The servant is regularly identified with Israel outside the songs: 41:8-10; 43:10; 44:1-2; 44:21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:7; in 54:17 the 'servants of the Lord' are God's loyal Israelites; in 42:19 the servant is Israel in exile. There are in all some fourteen instances where the servant is Israel. In the songs, however, the term servant describes an individual: 'my servant' 42:1; 49:3, 6; 'his servant 49:5. The commentary on or elaboration of the third song refers to 'his servant,' 50:10, while the 'Yahweh statements' of the fourth song speak of 'my servant' 52:13; 53:11. The name Israel occurs but once in the songs, 49:3. But if the servant songs belong to chaps. 40-55 and are the work of the prophet then there is no option but to understand the servant as Israel. The servant of the songs speaks or is spoken of as an individual: he is 'thou,' 42:8-16; he has a right hand, 41:13; he has eyes and ears but cannot see or hear, 42:19; he is formed by Yahweh from the womb, 44:1-2, as he is in the second song, 49:2. The servant-prophet speaks as one with his people, 49:1-6; 50:4-9, yet stands over against the people; the people, Israel, is the Israel of history, empirical Israel, faithless Israel, yet at the same time the true Israel which is to be God's instrument to redeem Israel; the servant-people is Israel with a mission to Israel; and the prophet is conscious that he is one with the people that has been hewn from Abraham, 51:1-2. When Israel suffers, she suffers for Israel and for the vindication of Israel by Yahweh (see comments on individual songs). The salvation of Israel by Yahweh the creator and redeemer is the theme of the whole of chaps. 40-55; Israel the people is the centre of the prophet's pronouncements." (Isaiah 40-66, pp. 135-136)

R. N. Whybray writes: "for our transgressions; for our iniquities: these phrases are usually intepreted as implying vicarious suffering: the people sinned, buth the Servant was punished. But this is made improbable by the choice of the word translated for. If the author had intended to imply such a transference of guilt, he would almost certainly have used the particle be, which denotes an exchange. The fact that he chose instead the particle min indicates that he regarded the Servant's ill treatment as the result of the people's sin but not as a substitute for the punishment which they had deserved: though more intense than theirs; though intense was fundamentally due to the same causes. They speak of his identification with them in their suffering: there is nothing to suggest that he suffered in their place. They--that is, the whole exilic community in whose name they make their confession--had previously thought of him quite difficulty undergone unusually intense misfortune, with the implication (though smitten by God perhaps means no more than 'terrible smitten') that he had brought divine punishment on himself through his own wickedness--possibly as a false prophet. See further on he bore the sin of many in verse 12." (Isaiah 40-66, p. 175)

Whybray continues: "In the second half of the verse the speakers assert that the prophet's suffering has not been in vain. In saying that they have been made . . . whole and healed, they are summarizing Deutero-Isaiah's own essential message, that Yahweh has forgiven them and is on the point of rescuing and restoring them. They affirm their faith in this message, and recognize that without his readiness to suffer in the course of his prophetic duty, the prophetic word, which was the means used by Yahweh to achieve his purpose (55:11), would not have been pronounced." (Isaiah 40-66, pp. 175-176)

R. N. Whybray writes: "and he shall bear their iniquities: this verb (an imperf.) should also be rendered as a past tense. This statement, like he bore the sin of many in verse 12 (see below), is usually interpreted as a statement that the Servant's suffering was vicarious and atoning. But there is no evidence for this. The phrase 'bear iniquities' (sabal awonot) occurs in only one other passage in the OT: 'Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear their iniquities' (Lam. 5:7). Here it is clear that although the speakers complain that their punishment is the consequence of their dead ancestors' sins, they can hardly claim to be vicariously atoning for them. So also here the Servant, though innocent, has suffered punishment which is the consequence of the sins of others, and which should rightly have fallen only on his guilty compatriots (compare verses 2-6); but he has not suffered in their stead. The meaning of the phrase is 'yet he suffered punishment which only they deserved'." (Isaiah 40-66, p. 181)

R. N. Whybray writes: "It may be noted here that several phrases in this chapter--he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows (verse 4); and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (verse 6); and he shall bear their iniquities (verse 11); and he bore the sin of many (verse 12)--have been discussed by some commentators as if they were identical in meaning with another phrase, nasa awon, 'bear guilt' or 'bear punishment', which does not occur in this chapter. But even if we can assume that the phrases are virtually interchangeable, nasa awon does not in fact refer to vicarious punishment or suffering. In the four passages from the laws (Exod. 28:38; Lev. 10:17; 16:22; Num. 18:1) which have been cited as proof of this meaning, the subject of the verb 'bear' is not involved in suffering at all. Rather these passages express a belief that a certain ritual actions neutralize or take away a punishment which would otherwise fall on the people. They have nothing in common with the idea of one person's suffering instead of another. Further, in Ezek. 4:4-6, where the prophet Ezekiel 'bears the punishment' of the house of Israel, his suffering is in no sense a vicarious punishment: on the contrary, it is a sign of the punishment which the people are themselves called upon to bear. The roles of Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel are here similar in the sense that both share the suffering of the people rather than suffering in their stead." (Isaiah 40-66, p. 183)

Donald Juel writes: "The messianic reading of Isaiah 53 in the Targum does not support the thesis that there existed a pre-Christian concept of a suffering Messiah whose career was understood in light of the chapter. In the Targum, virtually every element of suffering is eliminated from the career of the Servant-Messiah. The resulting portrait, though purchased at the expense of the obvious meaning of the text, accords in every respect with the portrait of the Messiah elsewhere in the Targum and in other Jewish literature. It is thus difficult to argue, as Jeremias does, that the striking interpretation by the targumist represents an effort to conceal an earlier tradition of a suffering Messiah that Christians found too useful. Were that the case, the image of a suffering Messiah would represent a complete anomaly in the Targum as a whole. The painstaking redoing of the passage by the targumist required by the initial identification of the servant as the Messiah need not obscure the usefulness of the passage to the targumist even apart from anti-Christian polemics. The initial description of the servant as exalted and glorified is perhaps sufficient cause for the messianic 'translation.'" (Messianic Exegesis, pp. 126-127)

Marco Treves writes of the servant in chapter fifty-three, "we must look for a saintly man murderd not long before 164," based on a dating of Second Isaiah to the Maccabaean age, following Robert H. Kennett (The Composition of the Book of Isaiah in the light of History and Archaeology). Treves stipulates: "He was the high priest Onias, as father Barsotti and Dr. Lassalle have recognized. The story of Onias is told in 2 Macc. iii 1-iv 38. He was a pious and saintly person. When Seleucus Philopator, having to pay a heavy indemnity to the Romans, had tried to confiscate the deposits of the Jerusalem widows and orphans, Onias had succeeded in placating the king without delivering these funds. But he was unjustly accused of conspiring against the government and in 174, on the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes, was supplanted by his unscrupulous brother Jason, who introduced into the city Greek customs contrary to the Torah. Jason, in turn, was supplanted by one Menelaus, who did not hesitate to appropriate some of the gold vessels of the Temple and sell them for profit or give them away as bribes. On being rebuked by Onias, he urged the Greek governor Andronicus to arrest him. Andronicus imprisoned and slew Onias. Menelaus' robberies were followed by riots, massacres and a general apostasy." ("Isaiah LIII" in Veta Testamentum 24)

So what do you think about the servant of Isaiah 53: is it Israel, is it the prophet of Deutero-Isaiah, is it some other Jewish figure, or is it a messianic oracle, or what?

best,
Peter Kirby

redzrx

I have read on Jewish sites in regards to this ISa 53 and they say that it is in regards to Israel( son and servant).I checked a couple of other sites(jewish) and they seem to all be in agreement on this.


They also say that its not a Prophesy!! but the way other nations viewed Israel.

I'm just curious if the only people making different claims are non-jews.

Also Peter.. does not the passage in question seem like past or present text.. or is that the way things were written back then? To me it seems like a commentary for the times it was written.

Mario

spin

As I am interested in Onias III, I thought I'd give Isa 53 a reread as I'd not come across a connection between it and Onias before, so I read with interest, only to find that, although I could see why one might think of Onias, there was nothing I could see that tangibly made a link between them. Does your source provide anything more tangible or was it the seduction of the idea?


spin

Peter Kirby

For spin, I have scanned the article by Treves:

http://www.christianorigins.com/treves.pdf

This file will be removed from the server in about a week (don't link to it).

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

Peter, the Tyndale office for back issues was closed, but I see you got that '85 article.

The BBR 13.1 is considered the current issue, which is why you could not find out how to back order it.

I wrote WTJ about back issues and they have not returned my note yet. But that one was the three articles on 8th century Background, which I think would be valuable to the question.

- rlogan

Peter Kirby

I forgot that I had already purchased that '85 issue to get Colin Hemer's article on Acts.

There is a bibliography of Isaiah here:

Isaiah Bibliography -- Dr. Victor H. Matthews

These look promising for greater detail:

Clines, D.J.A. I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53. JSOTSup 1; Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1976.

Laato, A., The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992.

Lindblom, J., The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah. Lund: Lund University Press, 1951.

Mettinger, T.N.D. A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom. Lund: Gleerup, 1983.

North, C.R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948.

Rowley, H.H. The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Wilcox, P. and D. Paton-Williams, "The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah," JSOT 42 (1988), 79-102.

A contribution from anyone is welcome, whether or not they look up anything in a library or buy a book. There is plenty of data and opinion in the original post.

Does anyone here see the passage as being oriented to the future or having messianic import?

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

Peter, I ordered the WTJ series.

After having looked at the commentary of the writers, I went back through the text looking for any "negations" of the interpretation that it is Israel being spoken of.

There is nothing in the piece that contradicts this reading. I suppose it is anachronistic to think of a nation as "she" as opposed to "he"?

This is where the culture of the time is important. That would be an instant negation.

-rlogan

Peter Kirby

If you download the PDF file, you can read a list from Treves of "servant of the Lord" language found in the Hebrew Bible. For example, any Jew could be given that appelation, as could priests and kings.

There would be nothing unusual in referring to Israel in masculine terms. There are other locations in Isaiah in which the "servant" is undoubtedly the nation.

Isaiah 41
8 But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, my friend
9 -- thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from the extremities thereof, and to whom I said, Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not rejected thee,

Isaiah 44
1 And now hear, Jacob, my servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen:
2 thus saith Jehovah, that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, who helpeth thee, Fear not, Jacob, my servant, and thou, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 45
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have called thee by thy name; I surnamed thee, though thou didst not know me;

Isaiah 48
20 Go ye forth from Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing; declare, cause this to be heard, utter it to the end of the earth; say ye, Jehovah hath redeemed his servant Jacob.

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

We are banking on several things in the onias theory of Treves.

The most tenuous link I think is the "dying for our sins" business. If we trust his history here, Onias was more the victim of political intrigue for standing in the way of plundering the Temple.

I am less able to evaluate the other assertions - but Onias would have to be one ugly duckling indeed to match the description in Isaiah. If it was that legendary, it would not have to be by personal observation as Treves offers.

But it is more than that. He is despised. I don't know that Treves has established this, unless it is an extension of the ugliness and disease.

I think in this circmustance we also look for a negation in this way: even if some aspects of Onias can be "shoe-horned" in, are there aspects of Onias that could not have been overlooked had a psalmist been writing of him.

The Spin meister might weigh in on this.

spin

I've been looking over Marco Treves' proposal that the servant figure in 52:13-53:12 is Onias III and as I see it at the moment I don't think he is convincing.

First he notices an important fact, that most of the text is in the past tense, which he takes to separate ch 53 from the other servant material, though I don't think this is either necessary or probable. This is not to say that the fact is unimportant. Being in the past makes it finished business. One doesn't write a prophesy talking about the past. What we have is a description of something that has happened in the past of the writer's period. I take that as a termination of all the servant material. The expectations of the earlier servant poems seem to come to an end in this one. The central figure is now referred to in the past, with the possible exception of 52:13 & 15a, but how these relate to the rest is difficult to determine, though i don't think we can with Treves simple relocate it and say that it refers to the son of Onias III.

Another apparently intersting point he makes is that in 53:2, "He grew up before him", the "he" being the servant and the "him" being God, the servant is before God, which is tantamount to saying that the servant is a high priest, as he serves before God, ie in the temple in the holy of holies where God's presence is. However, though this is interesting, the Qumran Isaiah scroll doesn't have "before him" but "before us" which is functionally acceptable in the context and eliminates the source of Treves' logic.

From here we start to have very little which is positive to support the claim. I don't think we can rule out his position, but I think there is unsufficient evidence to endorse it.

I'm less sure now than when I started that the servant in the other poems is Israel. In 49:3 God says "You are my servant, Israel...", yet in v.5 he says that the figure was formed "in the womb to be his (God's) servant, to bring Jacob back to him..." and in v.6 the servant was "to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel. The figure is a type of mediator between God and Israel. This still is relevant to Onias III, who as high priest mediated between God and Israel.

So, though I'm less inclined to see the servant as Israel, this in no way allows for the servant to be Jesus. This figure, as indicated by 53 ch, is in the writer's past. His role is to restore Israel and its tribes, not to turn from Israel.

I might change my mind tomorrow, or at least have something more to say on the subject.


spin