Commentary on Isaiah 49-55.
Chapter 49. The New Servant And The Deliverance of Israel.
Up to this point the Servant has been seen as potentially all the seed of Abraham. In Abraham his seed had entered the land and God's purpose was that through him, and them, all the nations of the world would be blessed. Israel was summed up in Abraham. They were seen as the extension of what he was. They were seen as the Servant because they flowed from him. They were the extension of Abraham. Potentially therefore all Israel could be seen as the Servant.
But this is not all the truth, for as we saw in Isaiah 42:1-4 the Servant was also seen having the Spirit on him, as bringing justice to the Gentiles, as establishing justice in the earth and as having the isles/coastlands waiting for His Instruction. Here we have the true king as described in the words of Moses, who treasures Yahweh's word and holds it in his heart so that he is fully obedient to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 17:18-19), never turning aside from it, but rather requiring his people to walk in it. The Servant is in a real sense both priest and prophet, leading forward his people so that they too can serve Yahweh.
The ideal hope expressed here was of an Israel who under their prophet king would be a witness for Yahweh to the Gentiles.
But the practicality was different. For now it is made clear that the actual Servant does not include all who would call themselves sons of Abraham. For the Servant is seen in this chapter as having a ministry to carry out on behalf of the whole of Israel (Isaiah 49:5). Israel as a whole have failed on their part and excluded themselves from being a part of the Servant. This comes out in that here the Servant speaks, and in a striking declaration declares that Yahweh has designated him as the true Israel (Isaiah 49:3) who is to bring back the light of salvation to the remainder of Jacob/Israel, raising them up and restoring them, in addition to his work of reaching out with it the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6).
Thus the Servant is now comprised of the true seed of Abraham only, the godly who have remained faithful to Him, those who obey Him. Professed outward connection is one thing, but it is only those who are obedient to the covenant who are to be seen as truly His. Disobedience is seen as resulting in amputation from the head.
Being ‘Israel' was a fluid concept. It was open to all who would come and submit themselves to Yahweh and His covenant. Any man could enter Israel by being circumcised and submitting to Yahweh and the covenant, even though he was previously a resident alien (Exodus 12:48-49). In the same way an Israelite could be blotted out from among Israel for gross sin (Exodus 32:33). One way in which this was represented in the Law was by the phrase ‘cut off from among the people' (Genesis 17:14). There were a number of offences for which this was the penalty, including ‘presumptious sin' (Numbers 15:30).
There were specially heinous crimes for which there was the death penalty for the same reason. When, for example, a man or woman ‘dishonoured' father and mother, or flagrantly went against them, or sought to bring them under a curse, that man or woman was to be put to death. Such were to be cut off from among the people, for they were rejecting God's appointed authority. It was a choice that they had made for themselves. By their act they had deliberately excluded themselves from obedience to covenant authority. And this applied to the dishonouring of any ‘father', the father of a household, the father of a clan, the father of a sub-tribe, right up to the tribal father. Another way of looking at this was that any man who dishonoured any of these was thus seen as ‘cursed' (Deuteronomy 27:16) under the covenant.
The same applied to anyone guilty of idolatry. Such a person also must be put to death (Exodus 22:20). They were to be cut off from among the people. They too were ‘cursed' (Deuteronomy 27:15). But in Yahweh's eyes a person was also ‘cursed', and therefore to be cut off from among the people, for not confirming the words of the covenant (Deuteronomy 27:26). True Israel was the Israel who obeyed God from the heart, and submitted to His covenant. While outwardly none may know the true situation, if a man did not in his heart confirm the words of the covenant he was to be seen as cut off from among the people. He was ‘cursed'.
The idea of ‘God's people' is therefore always in tension. Outwardly it is those who appear to profess obedience to the covenant. But that was often nominal, and as we have just seen many of them were under the curse of Yahweh for their secret sins and were thus not in His eyes His people. Many were idolatrous and openly disobedient. Many did not confirm the words of His covenant in their hearts. As He could say to Elijah, ‘Yet will I leave me seven thousand in Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal' (1 Kings 19:18). Yahweh always knew those who were His.
In modern times we may call such people ‘spiritual Israel', but that would not have been a concept appreciated then. They did, however have a similar idea. In the end they knew that for Yahweh Israel was made up of those who had not ‘cut themselves off' from Israel by their behaviour. Those who had not subjected themselves to the final ‘curse'. Those who had not been ‘blotted out' of His book. In Isaiah's term the true Israel was ‘the holy seed' (Isaiah 6:13)
So when we learn here that the Servant is the one who will bring Jacob again to Him, and gather Israel to Him, who will raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore the preserved of Israel (Isaiah 49:7), we know that he cannot be seen as representing Israel as a whole. The Servant is now to be seen as representing at the very most an inner circle in Israel, the faithful in Israel, who still honoured His covenant. Yet he is still described as ‘Israel' (Isaiah 49:3) because in Yahweh's eyes he alone represents the true Israel. He represents the faithful core of Israel, being made up of the coming Messiah Immanuel, of Isaiah himself and of all who were faithful to His covenant and sought to bring Israel back to God. These were the Israel not blotted out in God's eyes, not ‘cut off from Israel'. These were His Servant.
We have here a similar idea to that later enunciated by Paul (Romans 11:16-24). Here is the olive tree, which is the equivalent of the Servant. The fruitful branches remain in the olive tree, but the useless branches are cut off from the olive tree. However, if they cease to be useless they can be grafted in again. And others also can be grafted in, for He is not only to restore Israel but He is to be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6). We can also compare Jesus as the true vine and His true people as the branches. While they are abiding in Him they are living branches, but once they cease abiding in Him and become fruitless they are to be cut off and burned (John 15:1-6). These words are in fact especially significant, for the vine was regularly used as a picture of Israel (Isaiah 5:1-7). Thus His claim to be the ‘true vine' signified that He represented in Himself the true Israel, with those who were His branches also making up the true Israel. It is a very similar idea to the Servant.
So the true people of God are always in God's eyes those who are responding in faithfulness, and they alone. That is why those who do not ‘confirm all of the words of the Law to do them' are under His curse (Deuteronomy 27:26). They are no longer His people. (The same is true of the church. There is an outward church to which men outwardly belong, but His true church consists only of those who truly believe in Him and are responsive to His word in their hearts).
The Servant is also to be seen in another way, for he is not only to be given as a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6), but is also to be given as ‘a covenant to the people' (Isaiah 49:8). Just as He brought light to the Gentiles, so would He bring the covenant to His people. Now there is only one who, in this section from 40-55, is stated to be connected with the everlasting covenant given to the people, and is to be a witness given to the peoples, and a leader and commander to the peoples, and that is the coming ‘David' (Isaiah 55:3). He is the one who represents the covenant to all who wish to respond to it. Thus the servant is here closely aligned with the coming ‘David' (for this use of ‘David' as signifying also his seed compare 1 Kings 12:16), the one who will establish Yahweh's everlasting covenant with His people.
Furthermore much else about the Servant demands such a royal figure. In Isaiah 42:4 he is to set ‘judgment' in the earth, and the coastlands/isles are to wait for His Torah (law, instruction) in a context where he is similarly given as a covenant to the people (Isaiah 42:6). He is to have jurisdiction over the world. It does not matter whether we see ‘judgment' as signifying ‘right religion' or as meaning ‘the application of God's law', for both were the same to Israel. They were seen as a people bound by the Law, and the king was seen as the one who above all was to keep that Law and was to administer it and face them up with it (Deuteronomy 17:18-19).
It is to the Servant that Israel are to gather (Isaiah 49:5). It is he who will raise them up and restore them. Kings will arise at his presence and princes pay homage (Isaiah 49:7). He will be exalted, and lifted up and be very high (Isaiah 52:13). All this fits in with the idea of the coming king who is to be an ensign to the people (Isaiah 11:10), who is to rule the everlasting kingdom (Isaiah 9:7), who is have the Spirit upon him and is to rule in righteousness and judge and reprove all for whom he is responsible (Isaiah 11:1-4), and who is to be the highest of the kings of the earth (Psalms 89:27).
He is, however, also to be the prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6 compare Isaiah 42:2-3), in whose day the wolf will dwell with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6). So while he will have supreme power there is to be nothing martial or overbearing about him. His final aim is to establish all creation in harmony.
Indeed if we take the book as one whole, (and it is one whole whatever its antecedents might be), this must be so. It is inconceivable that this great figure should not be connected with the equally great prince of peace who is coming. Later Israel would not connect the two, but that was mainly because they turned the prince of peace into the great man of war who would rise up and give them a special status above all others. Their general idea of peace was that everyone else was to be subdued to them. On the whole they did not want a suffering martyr but a great hero (although there were, of course, always exceptions). The peace they sought was their own. But there can be no doubt really that the Servant in Isaiah 42:1-4 and here reflects echoes of the Spirit-filled king who will judge the poor with righteousness and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. So both king and faithful people were involved in the Servant, who is a corporate figure similar to the ‘son of man' in Daniel 7 who is at one point the king coming to God on behalf of his people (Daniel 7:13-14), and on the other represents the people as a whole, who are seen as ‘human' as compared with the wild beast empires.
In ancient times king and people were seen as bound up in each other. Regularly the king could represent the people in religious ceremonies, acting as their representative, and even as their substitute, before the gods. And this representative status was certainly true of the Davidic king. When the king did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, the nation was blessed. When he did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh the nation was punished. (That is the principle behind the books of Kings). He was ever seen as representing Israel. He was their very life (Lamentations 4:20). They felt bound up in him. In a very real sense therefore he would be seen by Israel as being in his own person ‘Israel'. So they would certainly have conceived of him as being addressed as ‘Israel'.
It is in fact impossible to avoid the idea that in certain places in the Servant passages the Servant has in the end very much the attributes of the coming king. We can indeed go further. We can in such places say that he is the expected king, the great representative of Israel who speaks in Israel's name and by whose activity Israel will be judged. But he is a king uniquely in Israel's image. He is the studier and dispenser of the word (Isaiah 42:1-4; Deuteronomy 17:18-20). His purpose is to bring Yahweh's word home to the people. And he is not seen as alone, for a king is never alone, he represents his obedient people. Others too assist him in his task. Thus king and faithful people are seen as acting together as one in the Servant, but with the king taking a prominent role.
Abraham was originally the type of the coming king and pointed towards His coming. He too was one and yet many (Isaiah 51:2). His tribe and his later seed were all seen as bound up in him. That is why on a careless reading of Genesis we can think of Abraham as a solitary nomad travelling around with his family and a few sheep. But to the writer, and to the discerning reader, ‘Abraham' is seen as including the thousands of his ‘household' who travelled with him. They were ‘Abraham'.
The very idea of a king is that he is king over his people. When the idea is at its best king and people go together. A king without a people is like an army without men. It is meaningless. When Abraham travelled around Palestine he was not alone. We may get that impression when we first start reading the narrative but we soon discover that it was not so. He was accompanied by his family tribe. Where he went they went. Often when we read ‘Abraham' we must read ‘Abraham and his people'. It was simply assumed. Abraham summed them all up in himself. When ‘David' smote the Philistines, it is immediately pointed out that it is David and his men (2 Samuel 5:20-21). When Sennacherib came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them (Isaiah 36:1), and claimed, ‘forty six cities of Judah I besieged and took' was he to be seen as alone? Of course not. It was assumed that his people came with him. The one represented the whole. Every one responded to his command. All were spearheaded in the king.
We are certainly therefore to see here that the Servant here is both the coming king and those who were faithful in Israel, just as the ‘son of man' in Daniel 7 represented both the prince (Daniel 7:13-14) and his people (Daniel 7:27). Wherever the king goes his faithful people go with him. Whatever the king does his faithful people do with him. So when God speaks to ‘Israel' here He is speaking to the king. He is also speaking to his faithful followers. Concentration and emphasis is on the one who represents the many.
To many of us this idea is, to quite an extent, foreign. We start as individualists. We think individually. We strike out individually. We opt out individually. And no one thinks the worse of us for it. We start with ourselves and work up and outwards, opting in and out as we choose. We are individuals who are part of a larger group, but we do not always submit to the group. We consider that we have a right to be ‘ourselves'. But in ancient days men saw things differently. They saw themselves as part of a larger unit to which they were irrevocably bound and committed in a way that we would not admit today. They did not see themselves as individuals. They saw themselves as part of a family, which was part of a sub-tribe, which was part of a tribe, which was part of a nation over which was a king. And they were an essential part of that group. Thus the meanest man saw himself in a very real sense as being bound up in the king, like a little finger is part of the body. They did not question that commitment, they accepted it fully. The king represented them totally. He was their very breath. And this was especially so as he was ‘the anointed of Yahweh' (Lamentations 4:20). They were bound up in all he did. The little finger did what the head said and was part of the whole, for attention was focused on the king. But in return he was what they were.
(Of course individualism would out. Men did rebel. It was in the nature of man. But woe betide him if the rebellion failed. He was seen as having broken the unity. He was utterly to be condemned. No one would have questioned the fact. He must be cut off. The only way to survive in such circumstances was to be successful and form a new unity in which all were bound).
So potentially the Servant, because he is Abraham, is all ‘the seed of Abraham', and that includes the kings who came from his loins. But in reality he is the faithful seed of Abraham, for they alone are his true seed, the rest are cut off because disobedient, and above all he is the faithful king. In essence he is the one to whom that seed pointed. In the end the seed of Abraham comes to prime fulfilment in the coming King Who alone fulfils Abraham's destiny. He replaces Abraham as the focal point. We could call him the new Abraham who is greater than Abraham. It began with Abraham, it will end with the prince who is the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6), the Abraham beyond Abraham. He will have fulfilled Abraham's destiny. The faithful are God's Servant, and have their part to play in His service, but in the end there is only One Who really fulfils that service, the one to whom all points, the only One who was ever truly obedient. All in the end flow from Him.
Note on the Servant Songs.
‘The Servant Songs' is the name usually given to the songs in Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 49:1-6; Isaiah 50:4-9; Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12. These are seen by the majority of scholars as originally standing on their own, and regularly seen as indicating a unique individual. They are then seen as later incorporated into the larger text of Isaiah 40-55.
We have no quarrel with that idea, and indeed there is much to be said for it. It seems to us very conceivable that in his ‘retirement' and contemplation Isaiah received the vision of the coming Servant, based on the king of whom he had already written in 7-11, but with a new recognition that the way for the king was not to be easy.
We may see him as first writing poems about the accession and triumph of the coming king, establishing justice and taking Yahweh's Instruction to the world, and taking Yahweh's light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 49:1-6; Isaiah 11:1-9; Isaiah 9:2). But even in this he recognises the important part that was to be played by the words from his mouth (Isaiah 49:1-6; compare Isaiah 42:3).
Then, remembering Moses' description of the true Yahweh-approved king in Deuteronomy 17:18-19, he saw that such a king could, in the light of the present condition of Israel, only reach his throne after having seen off the many who despised Yahweh's Instruction, as a result of Yahweh's action on his behalf (Isaiah 50:4-9), and he foresaw that this would inevitably result in humiliation before his final vindication.
He would know that as a uniquely born prince (Isaiah 7:14), not directly born through the earthly seed of the king, Immanuel was never going to be in a position of simple accession. It would be clear that his accession could only come about through God's working. This conception of the new prince as coming with Yahweh's instruction and being for a time rejected for it may well have caused him to write Isaiah 50:4-9, for in these days at the court of the evil king Manasseh he no doubt saw much evidence of the humiliation of those who were faithful to Yahweh in the court of the king. There may indeed have been one particular incident that sparked off his thinking.
As he contemplated further, this apparently then, as a result of his deep sense of sin (Isaiah 6:5; Isaiah 64:6), led on to his recognition that there had to be one who was Israel's representative, one who could therefore be addressed as ‘Israel' (Isaiah 49:3), and who could in himself bear the sins of Israel. He would wholly fulfil his position by himself bearing the sins of Israel through suffering and initial rejection (Isaiah 53:2-9; Psalms 22), followed by death as a guilt offering, and then by resurrection (Isaiah 53:10-12; Isaiah 25:8), the latter vindicating first himself and then those of his people who were responsive to Yahweh's covenant (Isaiah 53:10-12; Isaiah 26:19) so that he could finally rule over the everlasting kingdom (Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 49:1-6; Isaiah 11:1-9; Isaiah 2:3-4; Isaiah 4:5-6; Isaiah 26:1-4; Isaiah 27:2-6; Isaiah 32:1-7; Isaiah 33:20-21; Isaiah 55:3; Isaiah 55:9-13; Isaiah 65:17-25). And he would know that he could do this because he would be no ordinary man, but would be Yahweh's ‘sole man' (Isaiah 50:2), the ‘one' who was coming, ‘the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father' (Isaiah 9:6).
Then afterwards, inspired by God as he contemplated further, Isaiah recognised in all that was happening that Yahweh would fulfil His work promised through Abraham His servant (Isaiah 41:8), and incorporated these songs into his wider view of the Servant in the way in which we now have it. This incorporation of the one into the other explains both the connection of the two ideas, and the tension that arises between them.
End of note.