One feature of the theology of Deutero-Isaiah demands fuller consideration. The figure of the “Servant of Jehovah” is as conspicuous in his prophecy as is the figure of the Messianic king in Isaiah. What, then, does the prophet mean by this term? What does the figure denoted by it represent to him? What attributes or functions does he associate with it? The term itself denotes in general one who is God's agent or representative, and who is loyal and devoted, according to the knowledge possessed by him, in the discharge of the work entrusted to him. It is thus applied to many different persons, as Abraham (Gen_26:24), Moses (Num_12:7), Caleb (Num_14:24), Joshua (Jdg_2:8), David (2Sa_7:8), Isaiah (Isa_20:3), Eliakim (Isa_22:20), Job (Job_1:8), the prophets generally (Amo_3:7 and frequently), even to a heathen, as Nebuchadnezzar (Jer_25:9; Jer_43:10). In the present prophecy, however, the application of the term is peculiar; and is it not easy to form a perfectly consistent picture of the idea expressed by it. Let us be guided in our endeavour by the hints which the author himself affords us.
1. It is reasonable to seek the origin of the idea in the first passage in which the term occurs, Isa_41:8-10 : “But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved me; thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away; fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God.” Here there can be no doubt as to what the term denotes. It denotes the Israelite nation, treated, however, not as the mere aggregate of the members composing it, but as a unity, developing historically, and maintaining its continuity and essential character through successive generations. The nation is viewed by the prophet as a single individual, called by God in the distant past, honoured by Him with the title implying that it is His organ or representative upon earth, and now exiled in Babylon. Again, in Isa_45:4, Cyrus is addressed in these words: “For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel my chosen, I have called thee by thy name: I have titled thee, when thou hast not known me.” Here, not less plainly, the term denotes equally the nation, exiled at present in Babylon, and shortly to be released by Cyrus. The application is the same in Isa_43:10; Isa_44:1-2; Isa_44:21; Isa_48:20. In all these passages the term is a designation of Israel, the nation being regarded as an individual whose birth (Isa_44:2 : “Thus saith Jehovah that made thee, and formed thee from the womb”) coincides with its first appearance amongst other nations, whose ideal character (“my servant”) corresponds with the design (Gen_18:19 R.V.) stamped upon the nation's history, and whose life represents its subsequent experiences. The nation being thus grasped as an individual, it follows from the continuity of the national life that the term may be applied equally to denote it in every stage of its history. Thus in Isa_42:18-19 we read: “Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I send?” Here, as before, the term “my servant” denotes the nation; but the prophet for the moment thinks only of the masses whom he sees around him, heedless of Israel's mission and unconscious of its future destiny; these at the time represent the nation in his eyes, and elicit from him accordingly the language of reproof. In the other passages that have been quoted, he doubtless, in using the term, has in mind those who are more truly its representatives, and are worthy to receive the promises which he has to bestow. Just so, “Israel” is the recipient of promises and encouragement in Isa_41:14; Isa_43:1; Isa_44:23, while it is the object of rebuke in Isa_40:27; Isa_43:22.
Remarkable as is the prophet's contribution to the Biblical doctrine of God, it is surpassed in importance and originality by his teaching with regard to the mission of Israel. The very grandeur and universality of his conception of Jehovah appears to necessitate a profounder interpretation of Israel's place in history than any previous prophet had explicitly taught. It might readily appear that a Being so exalted and glorious as Jehovah is here represented to be could not enter into special relations with any particular people of the earth, and that Israel could be no more to Him than the children of the Ethiopians (Amo_9:7). This inference, which for a special purpose the prophet Amos seemed almost ready to draw, would obviously be fatal to the religion of revelation. It is little to say that this prophet does not accept the conclusion suggested; he repudiates it in the most direct and emphatic manner, declaring that since Israel was precious in His sight, Jehovah gives Egypt as its ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in its stead (Isa_43:3). And whether he was conscious of the problem latent in his conceptions or not, it is certain he has provided a solution of it, which lies in the thought that Israel is elect for the sake of mankind. Jehovah cherishes a purpose of grace towards the whole human race (Isa_45:18 ff.), and the meaning of His choice of Israel is that He uses it as His instrument in the execution of that world-wide purpose of salvation.1 [Note: J. Skinner, Isaiah, xl.-lxvi., p. xxx.]
2. The conception of the Servant of Jehovah culminates in Isa_52:13-15, a passage indelibly connected, to Christian readers, with the Passion of our Lord. And yet it is the work of a scholar to consider not merely all that the sacred language of prophecy may mean, and rightly mean, to ourselves, but, primarily at least, what it must have meant to the prophet himself, and to those for whom he wrote. And here we feel that we cannot be right in separating the conception of the Servant in this section from what has gone before. As before, so here, it can hardly be doubted that by the Servant the prophet means Israel, and that here also he is contemplating the work of Israel in the redemption of the world, and at the same time explaining the degradation of Israel in the past. If Israel had suffered, as it seemed, unjustly in the Babylonian Exile, and its position and character had been misunderstood by the world at large, this would be vindicated by its future glory in the eyes of the world, and the redemption of mankind at large.
What makes it so difficult to suppose that in the last group of passages the Servant means simply Israel is not so much the intense personification of the ideal (although that is very remarkable, and weighs with many minds); it is rather the character attributed to the Servant and the fact that he is distinguished from Israel by having a work to do on behalf of the nation. He is to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel, to open blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon; “to raise up the land, to make them inherit the desolate heritages; saying to them that are bound, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves.” That is, he is to be the agent in Jehovah's hand of effecting the release of Israel from captivity and of restoring it to its own land. Nay more, he endures persecution and opposition from his own countrymen, and dies the death of a martyr at their hands. His sufferings and death constitute an atonement for the sins of his people, so that with his stripes they are healed. He is one also who is in conscious and perfect sympathy with Jehovah's purpose in raising him up: he is neither blind nor deaf, but alert and sensitive and responsive to the Divine voice. So conscious is he of his mission, and so eager to succeed in it, that he speaks of himself as depressed and discouraged by its apparent failure so long as it was limited to the conversion and instruction of his own people, and as correspondingly cheered when it is revealed to him that his work has a larger scope, even the gathering of the whole race into the fold of the true religion. To this wider outlook there is attached the assurance of a signal success, which shall excite the astonishment of the nations and potentates of the world.
The chief difficulty in the identification of the Servant with Israel is made by the sharp contrast between the ideal and the actual. In the New Testament use of the word “church” we find the same double meaning. The ideal church, the bride of Christ, is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. But the church which actually exists is made up of frail and fallible men who too often must be rebuked for their unfaithfulness and immorality. There is an Israel within Israel to which alone the description of the Servant can be applied. This distinction between the ideal and the real Israel-that is, between the loyal and obedient kernel of the nation and the empirical mass, careless of its privileges-throws light on another problem. Some of the older prophets were perplexed by the fact that the innocent so often suffer with the guilty. Jeremiah had questioned Yahweh as to the justice of His action just on this ground; Ezekiel had solved the problem by ignoring some of the facts. Our author believes in the purifying nature of affliction, but he goes one step further in that he sees suffering to be the way in which a missionary must walk in order to carry out his mission. In the passage which forms the culmination of the Servant poems Yahweh Himself makes this plain. Here He calls attention to the Servant as one who has suffered deeply-“Marred was his appearance out of all human likeness, and his form out of semblance to the sons of men.” But as marked as the suffering will be the obeisance of many: “Before him kings will be awe-struck, for that which had not been told them they see.” At this point the Gentile kings themselves take up the description. They confess that they had thought the Servant smitten of God and afflicted. Now they see that he was, indeed, afflicted, but not for his own sake; the innocent suffered for the guilty: “Surely he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.” The smitten Israel even goes down to death in quiet resignation to the will of God. But death is not the end; a resurrection is to follow so that the Servant shall see the fruit of his labour. Since the only resurrection of which we have had a hint up to this point is the resurrection of the nation, foretold by Ezekiel, we must suppose that this is the conception cherished by the author.1 [Note: H. P. Smith, The Religion of Israel, 257.]
3. To attempt more precise definition may perhaps be too great a refinement, a drawing of distinctions which would not have been present to the prophet's mind. Person or personification, this at least is the culmination of the idea of Israel as the Servant of Jehovah, whether he expected the features of the portrait to be realized in a single individual or in the restored and purified nation. It represents the ideal Servant perfectly fulfilling his work. It shows how that work must be accomplished in the face of misunderstanding and opposition and persecution; how redemption can be achieved only through vicarious suffering, and life be won only through death. It is possible that some features in that portrait were taken from the actual experience of prophets and other faithful servants of God, and united in an ideal combination; that it sums up the experiences of the past, and through them points forward to the future. The significance of that portrait for the prophet's contemporaries was that it expressed the certain assurance that the purpose for which Israel had been created and chosen and preserved would not fail of its accomplishment. It is upon the basis of the atonement made by the Servant that the glowing description in Isa_54:1-17, of Zion's restoration in a covenant which is never to be broken, rests. When Israel has confessed its sin, and recognized the work of the Servant in and for it, it can fulfil its mission and become the mother of the universal Church. It is noteworthy that the Servant of Jehovah is not mentioned again. Instead of “the Servant,” collective or individual, we meet with “the servants,” as though in the restored Israel every individual would in his part fulfil the vocation of the whole.
When we speak of the “ideal Israel,” we do not mean that the prophet is simply living in a land of dreams, far from the solid earth. Each stage in their experience of God's dealings with them has emphasized for the people of Israel some special element in the Divine purpose, has contributed some distinct features to the end and goal of their development as the instrument in God's intention of salvation for the world. We can discern that with absolute clearness, as we look back across the Old Testament period, and follow the orderly succession of its epochs. The prophet felt the same truth intuitively, on the ground of experience. As he surveyed the history, he would be conscious that in each stage of the development there existed a sketch, if one may so say, of the ideal, a sketch gradually filled in as the spiritual outlook of the people was enlarged, its lines and colours growing in beauty and balance, until at last it stood before him in this mysterious, finished picture of the Servant of Jehovah.1 [Note: H. A. A. Kennedy, in The Expository Times, xix. 348.]
4. Whatever may have been the precise idea which the prophet's portrait of the suffering and triumphant Servant of Jehovah conveyed to himself and his contemporaries,-and it is impossible for us to tell how far they were allowed to see into the mysterious truth which it foreshadowed,-it is impossible for us who read it in the light of its fulfilment to doubt that it was intended by the Holy Spirit to point forward to Christ. In Him alone it receives its complete explanation. He takes up the work which Israel could not do. As Israel's ideal representative, He sums up in Himself and carries out to its fullest development all that every true Israelite, every faithful prophet, every patient martyr had foreshown, in many parts and in many fashions, of the Servant's work. Israel was “the Messianic nation”; and the Messiah who came in the fulness of times was the true and perfect Servant, whose redemptive work was exercised for His own people first, and then for the world. He was the final outcome and development of Israel; yet no mere natural product or spontaneous development, but the Divinely fore-ordained and Divinely given crown and consummation of the nation's history.
The Deutero-Isaiah has been rightly called pre-eminently the Evangelical Prophet. Both the tone and the subject of the book justify the title. The opening passage (Isa_40:1-11), with its message of comfort, speaks home to the heart and thrills as few words can. It has been likened to pulses of soft celestial music, “which steal from heaven as gently as the first ripples of light in a cloudless dawn.” And it is just this spirit, permeating as it does the whole of his prophecy, which helps to inspire us with the confidence that the progress and advancement of the human race is the cause of God Himself. This it is which makes him above all other writers of the Old Testament the preacher of good tidings: while the summons to declare these good tidings-God's-spell-to the nations, has been and is being answered by the many thousands who have preached and still are preaching the Gospel of Christ in the heathen world.1 [Note: F. H. Woods and F. E. Powell, The Hebrew Prophets, iii. 216.]
The Gospel, which is the distinctive contribution of Christianity to the world's history, is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Gospel. It is not His teaching alone, though that is full of glad tidings; it is not His death alone for the sin of the world, though His death, as the means of man's reconciliation with God, is included in the Gospel; it is not even His rising again, though by it life and immortality are brought to light; His teaching and His cross and His resurrection find their ground and explanation in what He was-they are the exposition or unfolding of His personality. The new fact, which is itself both “God's-spell,” the Divine word to and in humanity, and the “good news” to men, is that, within the limits of the great human family, there has been one life, one personality, in whom the perfect relation of humanity to God has been achieved, and the eternal character and inner nature of God revealed. In Jesus, God, the unseen, ever-present factor in the history of the universe, enters into possession of humanity and reveals His true character in the relations of human life; and, equally, humanity, or man's nature, enters into possession of the powers and freedom of eternal spirit. The Gospel is thus not a form of words, nor a doctrine, nor a scheme of reforms for this world or truths about the next; but a person, a fact out of which and the interpretations of it, all these legitimately come.1 [Note: D. Macfadyen, Truth in Religion, 134.]
If a missionary to-day wishes to reassure those who have been converted from heathenism to Christianity of the truth of the religion which they profess, he will appeal not to the consistency of their theory of life as compared with the contradictions and confusions of paganism, but to the change which they have consciously experienced. “You remember what you once were,” he will say to them, “when you were still in ignorance of Christ, when you were still in the environment of the old heathen society. You remember what you were, and you know what you have become since you were initiated by baptism into the fellowship of Jesus.” This and nothing else has been the appeal of the preacher of the Gospel right onward from the days of the apostles. He is not ashamed of his message, because he knows from the experience not only of his own life but of his evangelistic work that Christ is a dynamic, the very power of God. Every new field of labour, in proportion as it helps us to distinguish between the message and the conditions of life and thought under which it was first apprehended, increases the confidence with which the one living truth is presented anew. It is addressed to men as men, finding an entry into hearts and minds which have been prepared for its quickening influence by an education as various as the histories, the circumstances, the mental and moral equipments of the nations of the earth.2 [Note: J. G. Simpson, What is the Gospel? 25.]
