Of Whom Speaketh The Prophet This?

By Edward J. Young

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

ONE of the most beautiful incidents recorded in the book of Acts is to be found in the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. To this eunuch fell the privilege of asking — and it is the first recorded instance of the question being asked — of whom the prophet in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was speaking. And to Philip was granted the privilege of giving a definite answer to the eunuch’s question.

In recent times R. S. Cripps has written, “It is not recorded that Philip gave a direct answer to the question upon a point of history; nor may we be able to do so, but, none the less, like the deacon, we may ‘from the same scripture’ preach unto the Jews and unto the world Jesus and His vicarious, redemptive, work”.[1] This, however, is to minimize the importance of the identity of the Servant, for it assumes that we, even though we do not know of whom the prophet was speaking, may use his words for our preaching of Jesus. Furthermore, it seems to imply that Philip also did not regard the question of the Servant’s identity as particularly important, but merely took the passage as a sort of starting-point or springboard from which to begin his preaching.

For our part, we regard this statement of Cripps as entirely too cavalier. Let us, therefore, examine more closely the passage in Acts in order to learn precisely what did happen. In the first place, we may note that Philip was sent by an angel, and the Spirit commanded him to join the eunuch.[2] By this introduction the importance and solemnity of the event are stressed and emphasized. Furthermore, the religious character of the eunuch is thus brought to the fore. He had been to Jerusalem for the purpose of worship, and on the homeward journey was reading the prophet Isaiah. Nor was he reading in any hurried, careless fashion, but aloud, evidently that he might the better understand the meaning.[3] Philip recognized the passage and asked the eunuch if he understood what he was reading. Now, in the light of Philip’s solemn commission to approach the eunuch, it is unthinkable that he would have asked such a question unless he himself had been in a position to explain the passage. The mere uttering of this question, therefore, makes it clear that Philip was ready, not to preach a general sermon about Jesus but rather to expound this particular passage of Isaiah the prophet.

In such a manner also did the eunuch understand Philip’s question, for he asserted his need of one to explain (ὁδηγήσει) the words to him and besought Philip to come up and sit beside him. This he did, because he wanted Philip to expound this particular passage. Luke then tells what the passage was, so that the reader may know precisely what words were troubling the eunuch. Then it is that the eunuch beseeches Philip — there may be urgency in his voice (δέομαί σου) — to tell him of whom the prophet is speaking. In his question he places two alternatives: Is the prophet speaking of himself or is he speaking about some one else (περὶ ἑτέρου)?[4]

At this point Philip replies. He begins with these very words of Isaiah and preaches Jesus. Can we for a moment seriously entertain the thought that Philip did not answer the eunuch’s question — that he merely pointed out an analogy between the description of Isaiah and the sufferings of Christ? Can we for a moment think that Philip spoke as follows,

“The prophet was talking about himself, but consider how similar were his sufferings to those of Jesus whom I preach”. Had Philip spoken that way, there would have been no conversion. No, Philip took these words and from them preached Jesus. Thus he answered the question. “This one, whose sufferings and death the prophet so solemnly and beautifully describes, is Jesus, the Jesus whom I now preach to you.” Thus, and thus only can the words of Philip be understood. He did indeed answer the question. Like the Ethiopian eunuch he espoused the individualistic interpretation of this passage, but more than that, he espoused the individualistic interpretation in its only true form, as applying to the Messiah.

A. Elssfeldt and the Collectivistic Interpretation

As is well known, the individualistic, Messianic interpretation which Philip espoused has by no means found universal acceptance. Its strongest rival is the view that the figure of the Servant has reference, not to an individual, but to a group, namely, the people of Israel. In recent times this collectivistic interpretation has been advocated by some adherents of the Wellhausen school and has received particular emphasis through the appearance of Karl Budde’s strong “Minority Vote”.[5] Nevertheless, the collectivistic view has met with vigorous opposition, and has found difficulty in maintaining itself. It is, therefore, of great interest to meet the view in its latest manifestation.

In writing upon the identity of the Servant, Professor Otto Eissfeldt has approached the subject from a new angle.[6] In order rightly to identify the Servant, thinks Eissfeldt, we must first understand the nature of Hebrew thought concerning the relationship between the community and the individual.[7] According to the Israelitish way of thinking, unity came before plurality, and the society before the individual; or at least they were contemporary.[8] The actual reality or entity was the community in which the individuals originated. In particular was this true with respect to actual or fictitious blood communities such as the family, clan, tribe or people. These groups were not a composition of individual members, but rather a firmly held unity which came from a tribal ancestor and was bound up in him.[9] The Israelite, therefore, regarded his people as a unity, an individual. For the most part, the actual or fictitious tribal ancestor or ancestress appeared as such. They belonged not merely to the past, but rather lived on in the community which had originated from them and took part in and even bore its vicissitudes.[10]

In Israelitish thought, therefore, the conception of an ideal entity (Grosse) which is present in the community and yet at the same time above it, which is identical with yet different from it, was quite familiar. This thought can be expressed through the mere words Jacob or Israel. When, however, the term Servant is joined to either of these terms, it is evident that the reference is to the ideal rather than to the actual entity, and that this ideal can have a task to perform with respect to the real. We may understand, therefore, how the Servant can be entrusted with the work of bringing Jacob back and of gathering Israel unto the Lord.[11]

If this view of the Israelitish manner of thinking is true, it immediately destroys one of the most cogent objections against the collectivistic interpretation, namely, how could Israel have a commission to herself? It must, however, at the outset be recognized, and Eissfeldt himself acknowledges this, that the Hebrew language does not know this distinction between an ideal and an actual people. The idea, therefore, must be derived from other sources than the language. To what sources, therefore, does Eissfeldt appeal for support?

In the first place he appeals to certain passages to show that the tribal ancestor is over and over again (immer wieder) represented as speaking of the group and acting with regard to it. These are Jeremiah 31:15, 16; Lamentations 1:12–16; 2:19 and the Psalms of Solomon 1, etc. When we read Jeremiah 31:15, 16 it is evident at first glance that the passage does not mean what Eissfeldt asserts. Jeremiah has just made it known to the heathen nations (31:10–14) that the scattered nation of Israel shall again come to the goodness of the Lord in Zion. For the nation the exile has been a bitter time (vs. 14), but it will soon pass, for there will be a return.

To express this truth the prophet employs a beautiful literary device. It has been Ramah whence Jeremiah was taken into captivity (40:1). Perhaps, then, Ramah was a point of departure for the exile. And near Ramah was the tomb of Rachel. The prophet personifies Rachel, pictures her as lamenting the absence of her descendants, and utters the assurance that her labor of tears will not be in vain, for the banished children will indeed return. Is it not obvious, however, that Jeremiah is merely employing a vivid literary device? Is it not obvious that the Rachel of whom he speaks is the historical one, and the only reason why he speaks of her is that her tomb was near to Ramah?[12]

It should be noted that Jeremiah immediately proceeds to personify the northern tribes also by applying to them the name of their ancestor Ephraim. This does not mean that Jeremiah somehow regarded Ephraim as actually present. It is again but a vivid literary device.

Equally unconvincing are the verses in Lamentations to which Eissfeldt makes appeal. In these passages Jerusalem is personified and is represented as speaking. The Zion which the writer here mentions is not some vague, ideal entity but the actual city, personified as bewailing the grief that has come upon her because of her sins. The children of whom she speaks are her inhabitants that have been taken away into bondage.[13]

In II Samuel 20:19 the city Abel is mentioned as a mother in Israel, and this is thought to show that the ancestor was regarded as the one who brought up and instructed the children. But it is clear that the reference in Samuel is to an actual, historical city and not to an ancestor. Nor does the phrase “he had wrought folly in (Eissfeldt — against) Israel” (Gen. 34:7) indicate that the ancestor was living on in the tribe.[14]

Even if this phrase be translated “against”, as Eissfeldt desires, the conclusions which he draws do not follow. It may be that the reference is to the historical person Israel, or it may be that this phrase is post-Mosaic and refers to the nation. If so, it merely means that the nation is regarded as a unit as against the nation as a whole. This is precisely the same conception that obtains today in our country. If a man commits a crime, he is prosecuted by the state, for he is regarded as having transgressed against the state. Hence, even if the preposition should be translated “against” it would prove no more than that a man had sinned against his nation, Israel.

Likewise, the passages to which Eissfeldt appeals to show that the words “mother” and “father” were used in the sense of a tribal deity do not yield such support. For example, he refers to Hosea 2:4 to show that the children are judged for the sins of the ancestor. But the whole point of the prophet in this passage is merely to show that the nation Israel has been unfaithful, and hence all the Israelites will suffer. Eissfeldt’s argument is not convincing. The verses speak of actual historical entities, Zion, Jerusalem, Abel, Israel, Rachel, not of ideal ones. The conception of an “ideal” Israel, in the sense intended by Eissfeldt, is not to be found in the pages of the Old Testament.[15]

Since, therefore, the passages to which Eissfeldt appeals, do not in reality support his thesis, it follows that the Servant passages will not bear the interpretation which he places upon them. This latest attempt to defend the collectivistic interpretation must be pronounced a failure.[16]

B. Sellin and the Individualistic Interpretation

As has been noted, the Ethiopian eunuch apparently thought that the prophet was speaking about an individual.[17] The collectivistic interpretation seems not to have entered his mind. His only question was whether the prophet was speaking of himself or of some other individual. Strangely enough there have been those who have asserted that the prophet, whoever he may have been, was talking about himself, and who have seen in the figure of the Servant none other than the prophet.

According to Jerome the Jews of his day thus interpreted the third Servant passage, and Ibn Ezra apparently placed this interpretation upon the fourth passage.[18] In 1921 Sigmund Mowinckel suggested that the Servant was none other than “Deutero-Isaiah” himself, the supposed author of Isaiah 40–55.[19] This thesis was accepted with alacrity upon the part of some adherents of the school of form-criticism. However, a glaring weakness in the view soon manifested itself. It is obvious that Isaiah 53, if one is to stress the past tenses of the chapter, is describing the suffering and death of the Servant as already having taken place in the past. But how could this be, if the Servant were talking about himself? Subsequently, Mowinckel gave up his identification.

The theory, however, has not lacked in defenders, and one of the most valiant and able of these is Ernst Sellin.[20]

Sellin is quick to detect the weakness in Mowinckel’s position.[21] However, he is ready with a solution, a solution which in part had been prepared by the labors of Elliger. According to Sellin the first three “Servant” passages were composed by “Deutero-Isaiah” himself, whereas the fourth was the work of “Trito-Isaiah”, the editor of Isaiah 40–55, and is a song designed to commemorate the martyrdom of “Deutero-Isaiah”. If this thesis could be established, and we shall consider it in detail in the discussion of Isaiah 53, it would, of course, obviate one of the principal objections to the historico-individualistic interpretation.

There is a second objection of which Sellin is also keenly conscious. It is the insistence that the tasks assigned to the Servant in chapters 42 and 49 are so great that they cannot possibly apply to any known historical person. In other words, the descriptions transcend the bounds of the capabilities of a mere human being.[22]

This objection, in the present writer’s opinion, is one of the strongest that can be raised against the historico-individualistic view. Sellin also feels its force, and, to his credit, endeavors to answer it upon the basis of exegetical considerations. In order to examine his answer, it will be necessary to consider with some care his interpretation of the individual passages.

a. Isaiah 42:1–4

That Sellin has aligned himself with the school of Gattungs-forschung becomes immediately apparent. 42:1–4 he regards as a word of comfort (ein Trostwort) addressed to the prophet himself. The introductory הַן, followed by the third person, is to be regarded only as solemn clothing for an oracle which basically is intended for the benefit of the prophet, and is similar to passages such as Zechariah 6:15 or Numbers 23.

The principal exegetical question, according to Sellin, revolves about the words יוֹצִיא מִשְׁפָּט. If we interpret this phrase, as does Volz, to mean, “he brings out truth”, we shall indeed have a description of the Servant’s function that is not applicable to any mere human being. Sellin would escape this difficulty by translating “he will announce the right to the people” (Das Recht soll er den Völkern kundtun).[23]

In reply to this interpretation we would remark that even if one should acknowledge the legitimacy of the principles of Gattungsforschung, it is not necessary to accept Sellin’s views. We do not, however, accept these principles, but rather regard Isaiah 42:1–4 as an integral part of the context in which it is found. Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, we shall consider 42:l-4 as a unit by itself.

When we do this we discover, in the first place, that the troublesome הַן עַבְדִּי, cannot be dismissed in as cavalier a manner as Sellin would dismiss it. For one thing, the illustative passages which he adduces are not to the point. In Zechariah 6:12 the prophet relates that the word of the Lord has come unto him (vs. 9), commanding him to crown Joshua (vs. 11) and to say to Joshua, “Behold the man whose name is THE BRANCH” (vs. 12). In other words, the הִנֵּה is directed to Joshua and is not a general, introductory word as in 42:1. When all these blessings have come to pass, men will know that the Lord has sent Zechariah unto them. There is thus a distinction made between the One who is the object of the הִנַּה and the prophet himself. When Zechariah speaks of the Branch, he uses the exalted language of Messianic prophecy; when he speaks of himself, he employs the ordinary pronoun “me”.[24]

It should be noted that in the Old Testament the words ן or הִנֵּה always introduce an object or person that is other than the speaker, unless there is definite evidence to the contrary.

Thus, they are equivalent to the use of the imperative “behold!” in English. Such a passage as Isaiah 8:18 is really not an exception. For in this verse the object of הִנֵּה is not “me”, but rather the fact that Isaiah and his children are signs. In other words, the prophet is not saying, “Behold me and the children”, but rather “Behold the fact that it is I, etc.” Hence, there is no analogy in the entire Old Testament that would warrant us in assuming that עַבְדִּי in Isaiah 42:1 is to be identified with the speaker. Throughout the Old Testament the object of הִנַּה is always to be distinguished from, not identified with, the speaker. In other words, by this device, the speaker directs the thoughts of the listener to something or someone that is distinct from himself.[25]

We cannot say therefore that the prophet in Isaiah 42:1 is merely using a literary device to clothe the passage with solemnity. The autobiographical interpretation founders on this introductory word. When the prophet says, “Behold! my Servant”, he is directing the attention of his hearers to One who is distinct from himself. And thus it would have been interpreted. Anyone who heard his words would have concluded that his purpose was to turn their attention to someone other than himself.[26]

In the second place, there are serious objections to holding that יוֹצִיא means nothing more than “to proclaim”. It is perfectly true that in certain passages the word may have that connotation, and it is also true that Matthew, in quoting this passage, says, καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ (Matthew 12:18b). However, when we carefully consider the context of the passage, we realize that to translate יוֹצִיא by “to proclaim” is not to do it justice. In the first place, the Servant has been endued with the Spirit of God. This is a distinct Messianic characteristic, and it implies a preparation for a work of unusual nature. As a result of this supernatural enduement, the Servant will bring forth judgment to the nations. His mission, therefore, transcends the bounds of Israel. It is not national, but universal. This, too, is a definite Messianic concept.

The task of bringing forth judgment to the nations is not an easy one. A weaker person might fail, but not the Servant. The exact connotation of כָּהָה is perhaps difficult to determine. Whether it means that the Servant will not grow dim as does a lamp and thus- weaken in His task, or whether it merely means that He will not faint in the performance of His work is not of too much moment. The important thing is that this verb expresses the thought that the magnitude of the work which lies before Him will not adversely affect the Servant. He will continue strong unto the end. The same is true of the verb ירוחּ. He will not be crushed, or, as we commonly say, he will not go to pieces, until the successful completion of His mission.[27]

These verbs allude at least to the fact that the Servant’s task is no ordinary one. At this task He will continue until He has placed (עַד־יָשִׂים) judgment in the earth. The work is universal in sense, for הָאָרָחּ here refers to the entire earth, and not only to the land of Palestine. Not merely is the Servant to proclaim judgment, but He is actually to place judgment in the entire earth. Surely this refutes Sellin’s suggestion that יוֹצִיא means no more than “to proclaim”.

Furthermore, the description in verses 2 and 3 is exceedingly strange, if the Servant’s task is to consist merely in “calling out” (er ruft hinaus). For, if the Servant’s task consists in “hinausrufen”, why are we immediately told that He will not cry or lift up His voice, or cause His voice to be heard? (Sellin translates, “Er schreit nicht mehr und ruft nicht mehr laut und lässt nicht mehr seine Stimme auf den Gassen hören”). There is a contrast expressed in verse 2, thinks Sellin; it is the contrast between the prophet’s present task and his previous method of preaching.[28] But this is not satisfactory, and it is purely subjective. Whatever the contrast intended in verse 2, it is not that between the prophet’s former method and his future method of preaching.

Again, verse three offers certain difficulties. It is hard to understand how mere preaching would break a bruised reed. On the other hand when this third verse refers to an active missionary work of the Servant, it becomes filled with meaning. Nor is there objective warrant for changing the verbs in verse 3 from the third to the first person. A position that must be defended by expedients such as this is weak indeed.[29]

According to Sellin we are to understand the prophetical work of the Servant as eschatological in nature. The conversion described, therefore, is not one which the prophet himself personally will behold, but one that is eschatological. It is not necessary to assume that the prophet will be on hand. His preaching, as it were, merely sets the ball rolling until God in the end-time brings all the heathen to conversion.

But even this interpretation does not remove the difficulty. For the Servant, we are told, will continue until He Himself has placed judgment in the earth, and for His law (i.e., the law of the Servant, not of the Lord, as Sellin asserts)[30] will the isles await. In other words, the Servant, although indeed the chosen One of the Lord, nevertheless is One who works in His own right; it is His law for which the isles wait. This one statement alone is sufficient to overthrow the historico-autobiographical interpretation.

No mere prophet would dare to speak of himself in this way. All the prophets were conscious of proclaiming not their own words, but those of the Lord. The prophet was but a spokesman for God. It is inconceivable that a prophet — even if he were as great as the supposed Deutero-Isaiah — would picture himself as preaching until he had placed judgment in the world and would assert that the isles were to wait for his own law. A man who could speak thus of himself would be filled with boundless conceit.

By way of summary we would remark that: 1. There is no evidence to support the contention that by use of the introductory הִנֵּה the prophet was merely employing a device for referring to himself. All the evidence, rather, goes to show that הִנֵּה in such a case serves to call attention to a person or object distinct from the speaker. 2. The verb יוֹצִיא, as is shown by the context, particularly by עַד־יָשִׂים of verse 4, does not mean “to call out” but rather, “to bring out”. The Servant’s task, in other words, is to establish judgment in the entire world. Three times in these four verses is this thought expressed. This task is too great for a mere prophet. 3. The isles will await the Servant’s law. This world-wide mission, therefore, is one which could not have been performed by a mere prophet. The description of the task transcends the capabilities of an ordinary mortal. Hence, the principal objection to the historico-autobiographical interpretation still remains. Whoever the Servant of Isaiah 42:1–4 may be, certainly the writer did not intend his readers to understand that he was talking about himself.

b. Isaiah 49:1–6

Like 42:1–4, Sellin also regards the present passage as a word of comfort for the prophet’s own benefit. In a moment of doubt and depression, he had appealed to God, and from this message strength and assurance had come. For the prophet now is reminded that he must also undertake a task far greater than that which had previously been his. Not only does he have a calling to Israel, but he is also to be a light unto the Gentiles, and since in this greater task he will be successful, so may he be assured that in the more restricted work with reference to Israel, success will also be his.[31]

To support this interpretation and to refute the view of Volz, namely, that there is here simply a section of the activity of the prophet in which two historical periods in his life appear, Sellin adduces three arguments. In the first place, he appeals to Jeremiah 1:5 as a supposed analogy which, he believes, deeply influenced the prophet. Secondly, the construction of the passage is said to support this view. In v. 3 the אֶתְפָּר is purposely general and indefinite, in order to show that the task of the Servant as expressed in verses 5 and 6 is not too narrow but is truly great. Lastly, Volz’s view is thought to bring one into conflict with the temporal position of a new call.

The work of the prophet from the beginning included two tasks. Since he appears to be hesitant about the outcome of the one, he is comforted by the assurance that the greater task will indeed bring success.

We agree with Sellin that no new task is here imposed upon the prophet and we agree in general with the idea that the work of the Servant consists both in a mission to Israel and also to the Gentile world. However, the basic question to be answered in connection with this passage has to do not so much with the nature of the Servant’s mission as with the identity of the Servant himself. Is the Servant an individual, and is this individual the prophet? To answer these questions aright requires an examination of the passage in question.

Verses 1 and 2 do indeed favor the individualistic interpretation. The Servant speaks as an individual. He appeals to the isles and nations to hearken unto him as he relates how God has called him. The passage does not state when God had revealed to the Servant the fact of his call, as is the case with Jeremiah 1:5. It merely sets forth the Servant as conscious that God has revealed this call to him and that, like Jeremiah, he was called before his birth. He is also conscious of the fact (verse 2) that the Lord has prepared him to perform the function of a prophet.

In verse 3 the Servant relates the words which the Lord had addressed to him, and it is precisely at this point that the first real difficulty in the passage emerges. For the Lord addresses the Servant as Israel. If, therefore, the individualistic interpretation is correct, how account for this disturbing word? There are those like Duhm who say, “Strike it out!”[32] In fact that is precisely what Sellin himself would do. But the word cannot be thus easily discarded. It appears in all the versions, and this is a fact that cannot lightly be ignored. Other expedients also have been adopted but are not satisfactory. The word should be interpreted just as it stands, as serving to identify the Servant. In other words, the Servant is here identified as Israel, and this precludes an exclusive reference to him as an individual.

It should be noted furthermore that the terms which describe the Servant’s task are such that they cannot easily apply to a mere human individual. The Servant is to cause Jacob to return unto the Lord, and Israel will be gathered unto Him. These, let it be noted, are characteristic Messianic tasks. In the very nature of the case, the return unto the Lord is spiritual, and this return is set forth as the work (לְשׁוֹב — not merely as a result of the work) of the Servant. This is particularly clear in verse 6 where the Servant’s task is to establish the tribes of Jacob and to cause to return unto the Lord the dispersed ones of Israel. Furthermore, he is to be a light unto the Gentiles in order that God’s salvation may extend to the ends of the earth.

These tasks are such that mere preaching alone will not accomplish them. They must be eschatological in nature, a fact which Sellin also recognizes. But it is inconceivable that any man who was good and humble would speak of himself in such a way. A good man would never set himself forth as the Saviour of the world, for he would be too conscious of his own sin and weakness. Nor would a good man delude himself into thinking that God was thus speaking to him. This revelation differs toto coelo from the calls given to the prophets. If this is a message of comfort given to a prophet, it is without parallel in the entire Old Testament.[33]We are compelled, therefore, to assume that in 49:1–6 the prophet is speaking, not of himself, but about another.

c. Isaiah 52:13–53:12

If one assumes, as does Sellin, that the Servant of the four passages is everywhere the same, it follows that the key section for the identification of the Servant is 52:13–53:12. Hence it is particularly necessary to consider with some care Sellin’s treatment of Isaiah 53.[34]

It is obvious, even upon the basis of a mere glance at the chapter, that the Servant in Isaiah 53 has died (if the strict use of the tenses be pressed). Indeed, it was this very fact which in reality destroyed Mowinckel’s hypotheses. We are to regard Isaiah 53, however, thinks Sellin, as the work, not of “Second” but of “Third” Isaiah. It is, in fact, a poem concerning the martyr-death of “Second” Isaiah.

The passage, argues Sellin, is a liturgy in which various voices are heard. 52:13–15 is spoken by God; 53:1–11a is a funeral song and song of repentance uttered by the prophet in the name of the people, and 53:11b, 12 is again an utterance of God.[35] The song (to use Sellin’s terminology) is divided into seven strophes of eight lines, save for the sixth (53:10, 11a) which has only six.

“Third” Isaiah represents the exaltation of the slain Servant as a real life in the body on this earth. It is true, grants Sellin, that the prophet says nothing about a resurrection or of a return of the nefesh of the Servant from Sheol, and so can say nothing about the “how” of the miracle. He is satisfied with merely the thought that the one who has been slain is again alive and in our midst, and the plan of God to bring in the consummation which he had once proclaimed he will now bring into realization.[36] In the old prophetical narratives, we are told, there were legends which showed that Yahweh could bring the dead to life. That “Third” Isaiah says nothing more about this expectation is no argument against his authorship of the passage. There was nothing more for him to do, having once announced the continued bodily existence of the Servant, but to be still and wait. Possibly, as time went on, he learned to see in himself a substitute for the Servant and in the עֲבָדִים a substitute for the זָרַע of the Servant. At any rate, the important emphasis of the passage is not the exaltation of the Servant but his substitutionary suffering.

Such, briefly stated, is Sellin’s interpretation. For our part, we find it unsatisfactory, for it does not do justice to the requirements of the text.

In the first place, the tenses of the verbs do not, in reality, prove the correctness of the historico-individualistic interpretation. The passage begins with an introductory exclamation הִנַּה יַשְׂכִּיל עַבְדִּי, which reminds one of 42:1. It is perfectly obvious that this is not addressed to the prophet, but calls the reader’s or hearer’s attention to a third person, the Servant. Furthermore it describes His work in the future.

The verb יַשְׂבִּיל, as employed here, has reference not only to the outcome of the Servant’s work, but also to the work itself. It is as though the Lord had said, He shall act wisely (i.e., “shall use the best means for the attainment of the highest end” [Alexander]), and as a result shall be exalted. The verb, therefore, brings to the fore the prudent or wise manner in which the Servant is to execute his task.[37] Now, the point to be noted is that this wise dealing is set forth as future, not as past.[38] The three verbs describing the exaltation which is a necessary consequent of the wise dealing are also placed, as might be expected, in the future.

It is this introductory future which sets the time of the whole description. The Lord here calls upon men to regard the Servant as one who in the future will wisely accomplish his work. Hence, we are prepared to regard the following perfects as prophetic. Even, however, if the meaning of יַשְׂכִּיל be restricted to express only the success of the Servant’s dealing and so to exclude any particular reference to the actual work itself, nevertheless, there is difficulty in consistently applying the following description to past time.

Verses 14 and 15 also offer difficulties for those who regard the Servant’s suffering as having taken place in the past. These verses emphasize the fact that the contempt of men, caused when they see the Servant, will give way to their admiration, caused by his atoning work. We may paraphrase, “Just as in previous time, due to the terrible disfigurement of the Servant, many were shocked at Him, so now, because of His expiatory work, even kings will stop their mouths”.[39] That which produces the change in the attitude of men is the work of the Servant, expressed in the word יַזֶּה and this work is expressed as future.

As is well known, the reading יַזֶּה (in the sense, he will sprinkle) is almost universally rejected today. With this rejection, however, I find myself unable to agree. But what should now be stressed is that, even if the present reading be rejected, the difficulty is not completely removed. According to Sellin, the kings and peoples of this verse are to be regarded merely as witnesses of the marvelous fate of the Servant, somewhat in the sense of Isaiah 62:2. But even upon the basis of Sellin’s translation the verses mean far more than this.[40] Even upon the basis of Sellin’s translation, a strong contrast is maintained. As once many were offended at the Servant, so because of him, many will be excited and kings will close their mouths, because they see and experience something new.[41] In other words, the peoples are not mere witnesses. They are actively benefited by the Servant’s suffering. They will become excited, kings even closing their mouths, because they experience something utterly new.[42] Furthermore, this picture is set forth as something future. At the time when the prophet spoke, this worshipful reaction upon the part of the people and kings had not yet occurred. From the prophet’s standpoint it was yet future. Nor was it in any sense cataclysmic or eschatological, it was merely future. Through mere learning about the Servant the marvelous change is to be accomplished. It is not something that even the so-called “Trito”-Isaiah sees accomplished, but something which he regards as future.[43]

That, however, which clearly places the saving work of the Servant in the future is the statement in verse 11, “He shall bear (יִסְבֹּל) their iniquities”. I can find no grammatical warrant for translating this word by the past tense, as does Sellin. (Gerechtigkeit wird verschaffen mein Knecht den Vielen, weil er ihre Schuld auf sich lud). Not only is it stated that the Servant will bear the iniquities of many, but also that He will thus justify them. In this verse, therefore, the suffering of the Servant is set forth not as something which has already transpired, but rather as that which is yet to take place.[44]

It should be noted that the emphasis upon the future is to be found particularly in the opening and closing words of the passage. In the light of this fact, it seems very difficult to regard the heart of the section as referring to events which have already transpired. It is much better, therefore, to regard this passage as containing prophetic perfects. The fact that Sellin must posit a different author for chapter 53 from the one which he assigns to the first three Servant passages, is, in reality, an argument against his hypothesis. If all the four passages be regarded as the work of one author, the fourth passage proves to be a stumblingblock to non-Messianic interpretations. For then, one must either assume that it refers to some historic figure — and Sellin’s previous writings show how unsatisfactory this is — or else one must assume that it refers to the prophet himself and this, of course, is out of the question. We are left, therefore, with the alternative that the passage either must be interpreted in a collectivistic sense — and this Sellin very rightly does not wish to do — or else we must interpret the passage, as it should be interpreted — of the future Messiah. To escape these difficulties Sellin must introduce a “Third” Isaiah as author of chapter fifty-three.

We conclude then that the use of the tenses does not decisively settle the question in favor of the historico-individualistic interpretation. For that matter, the tenses in themselves cannot be regarded as entirely decisive, one way or another. Nevertheless, in so far as they are decisive, they seem to support the future interpretation.[45]

Secondly, if the so-called “Third” Isaiah wrote this passage, why did he not make it clear that he was talking about “Second” Isaiah?[46] If “Second” Isaiah was as great as chapter 53 portrays him, why conceal his identity? Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that so great an historical personage should be thus passed over in silence. Witness, for example, all that is said about Moses and other heroes in Israel’s past life.

Thirdly, and this argument is decisive, the description in chapter 53 positively precludes reference to any known historical person. Nowhere in the Old Testament is any mere human being portrayed as free from sin and as a righteous one, justifying others. Throughout this chapter, as both Volz and Sellin stress, there is a strong emphasis upon the doctrine of substitution. This substitution is not merely quantitative, it is not only the One in place of the many, but it is also qualitative, the One who is righteous in the stead of the many who are unrighteous. The One possesses righteousness, righteousness of so absolute a character that He can bear the iniquities of the many. The many have no righteousness at all but do possess iniquities. However, there is a glorious interchange. The One bears the iniquities of the many, and the many receive the righteousness of the One. No writer of the Old Testament would speak this way about any mere historical person, however great that person may have been. Not thus did the prophets speak of Moses, the first great deliverer in Israel’s history.[47]

There is a seriousness in chapter 53 which Sellin seems to have overlooked. There is a depth of earnestness in these words, for the prophet is speaking of a salvation that is spiritual in nature. And such a salvation, in the Old Testament, is never attributed to man as its author, but only to God. There is no need to say more. Isaiah 53, if its message is to be taken seriously, cannot be applied to a mere historical  character. We venture to predict that Sellin’s view will never receive wide acceptance in the Church, for the heart of faith can see in these sublime words only Jesus.

The great contribution which Sellin has made is not in his identification, but in his insistence upon an individualistic interpretation as alone being correct. For that he has earned the gratitude of all serious students of Isaiah. But when we speak of an individualistic interpretation, what precisely do we mean? We mean that the subject of these remarkable passages is the Messiah, not the Messiah regarded as an isolated Person, but rather as the Head of His body, the Church.

In chapters 42 and 49 the body, the Church, receives some prominence. It is thus that Paul interpreted. “For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47). This fits in well with Isaiah’s own designation of the Servant in chapter 49 as Israel. In chapters 50 and 53, however, the body recedes into the background and the Head alone appears. The Servant, therefore, is to be regarded as a corporate Person, Jesus Christ as the Head of His Church.

It is not our purpose at present to expound this interpretation further. That must be reserved for another time. Our purpose in this present article has been merely to show that the two latest attempts to discover in the Servant a reference other than to the Messiah have failed. Of whom speaketh the prophet this? He speaketh not of himself, but of another, and that other is Jesus Christ. When once we have grasped that fact the so-called riddle of the Servant-passages will be no more.

Notes

1. ed. L. W. Grensted: The Atonement In History And In Life, New York, 1929, p. 93.
2. Acts 8:26ff. ἄγγελος δὲ Κυρίου ἐλάλησεν πρὸς Φίλιππον (verse 26); εἶπεν δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῷ Φιλίππῳ (verse 29).
3. It is quite possible that while in Jerusalem the eunuch had heard an exposition of the prophecy in which the interpretation had been advanced that the prophet was speaking of himself. His purpose in reading aloud, therefore, may have been to enable him to ponder this question more intelligently. In the light of present day criticism this scene is particularly striking. In the question of the eunuch we see a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 56:3b–5. It is a scene from “third” Isaiah, and the eunuch’s question has to do with the interpretation of a passage in “second” Isaiah.
4. It is interesting to note that the eunuch makes no mention of the possibility of a collectivistic interpretation. He seems to be sure that the prophet is speaking about an individual, and his concern is about the identity of this individual.
5. Karl Budde: Die sogenannten Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder und die Bedeutung des Knechtes Jahwes in Jes. 40–55: Ein Minoritätsvotum, Giessen, 1900.
6. Otto Eissfeldt: Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja (Jes. 40–55) im Lichte der Israelitischen Anschaung von Gemeinschaft und Individuum, Halle, 1933.
7. op. cit., p. 12, “.. . dass man die Ebed-Gestalt von Jes. 40–55 in einen grösseren Zusammenhang hineinstelit und sie in das Licht der hebräischen Anschauungen von Gemeinschaf t und Individuum, von Ideal und Wirklichkeit hineinrückt”.
8. op. cit., pp. 13, 14, “Israelitischem Denken, das sich hierin weithin mit semitischem Denken überhaupt deckt und auch ausserhalb der semitischen Welt Parallelen hat, steht die Einheit ‘vor’ der Vielheit, die Gemeinschaft ‘vor’ den einzeln, oder beide sind doch zum mindesten gleichzeitig.”
9. op. cit., p. 14, “Das eigentlich Seiende ist die Gemeinschaft, und die zu ihr gehörenden einzelnen sind aus ihr erwachsen. Das gilt vor allem von den tatsächlichen oder fiktiven Blutsgemeinschaften: Familie, Sippe, Stamm, Volk. Sie sind nicht eine Zusammenfassung der einzelnen Glieder, sondern eine von einem Stammvater erzeugte und in ihm dauernd als solche festgehaltene Einheit.”
10. op. cit., pp. 14, 15, “Meistens erscheint als solches der tatsächliche oder fiktive Stammvater oder auch die tatsächliche oder fiktive Stammutter. Denn diese gehören nicht bloss der Vergangenheit an, vielmehr leben sie in der von ihnen erzeugten Gemeinschaft weiter und sind Teilhaber, ja Träger ihrer Geschicke”. A translation of Eissfeldt’s article by Dr. A. R. Johnson appeared in The Expository Times, Vol. 44, pp. 261-268. He translates the above sentence as follows, “As a rule, the real or fictitious ancestor or ancestress appears as such: for the latter do not belong simply to the past; they live on in the community which owes its being to them and participate in, even determine, its destiny” (p. 265). Van der Ploeg (Les Chants Du Serviteur De Jahvé, Paris, 1936, p. 96) translates more accurately, “.. . ils en sont même les sujets”.
11. op. cit., pp. 24, 25, “Es ist also durchaus verständlich, dass der Ebed Jakob zu Jahwe zurückführen und Israel zu ihm sammeln, die Stämme Jakobs wiederaufrichten und die Bewahrten Israels wiederbringen soil, (49, 6), und es ist schwerlich Zufall, dass wenigstens in Vers 6 als Objekt seiner Tätigkeit nicht die singularische Gesamtperson, sondern pluralisch die einzeln Stämme oder Personen genannt werden”.
12. So also van der Ploeg (op. cit., p. 97), “Et c’est bien la Rachel individuelle, historique, non une Rachel qui flotte dans l’air et qui tire son existence on ne sait d’où: elle pleure, on entend sa voix et ses sanglots”.
13. Likewise, the appeal to the Psalms of Solomon is in vain. In chapter 1, Zion is personified as saying, “Because I was well off and had become rich in children”. But, it is perfectly obvious that here the reference is to the historical city. Note that in verse 7 Zion asserts that she had no knowledge of the sins of her children. How could she say this, if she were conceived as actually present, a sharer of their vicissitudes? Van der Ploeg also refers to Isaiah 50:1 as a text to which appeal might have been made, and shows that here also the historical people are in view (op. cit., p. 98).
14. כְּי נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְּיִשְׂרָאַל.
15. That Hosea is speaking of the actual nation Israel and not of some ancestor is shown conclusively by the fact that Israel is to be destroyed. “And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel” (Hosea 1:5). This reference is to the end of the historical nation, Israel, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancestor. Eissfeldt also points out that the word יְשֻׁרוּן was sometimes used instead of יִשְׂרָאַל (op. cit., p. 24, n. 1). He derives this word from יְשָׁר and regards it as designating the people or its ancestor as just. But such an etymology is questionable.
16. Sellin (“Die Lösung des deuterojesajanischen Gottesknechtsrätsels”, in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin, 1937, pp. 177-217) remarks (pp. 178, 179, n. 1) concerning Eissfeldt’s hypothesis, “.. . dass auch Eissfeldt nicht einen einzigen Beleg dafür erbracht hat, dass die Gesamtperson, der Ahn positiv als Erzieher an den Einzelnen gedacht ist, dass er aktiv und im Auftrage Gottes mit Wort oder Tat in das Leben dieser eingreift, wie es 49 5f. ausgesagt wird”. “In Wirklichkeit ist es sogar direkt ausgeschlossen, dass ein Deuterojesaja, der in Jaqob wie Hos. 12 4f. Jer. 9 3 einen grossen Sünder gesehen hat vgl. 43 27, oder ein Tritojesaja, der sagt: Abraham weiss nichts von uns, Israel kennt uns nicht 63 16, solche Gedanken vertreten haben sollte.”
17. See note 4, supra.
18. Cf. Patrologiae Latinae, Tom, XXIV, col. 496, “Judaei hoc capitulum a superioribus separantes, volunt ad Isaiae referre personam, quod se dicat a Domino accepisse sermonem. . .”; Heinz Fischel: “Die Deutero-jesaianischen Gottes-Knechtslieder in der Juedischen Auslegung” in Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XVIII, Cincinnati, 1943–44, pp. 63f.
19. Mowinckel: Der Knecht Jahwäs, Giessen, 1921.
20. op. cit.
21. op. cit., p. 185, “Hieran (i. e., that chapter 53 sets forth the Servant as already having suffered) scheiterte bekanntlich die Hypothese Mowinckels, so dass er sie selbst wieder aufgab”.
22. Sellin also suggests a third possible objection, namely, that since Cyrus has been set forth as the means whereby God would convert the peoples, any other contemporary person would thereby be excluded. Such an objection, in my opinion, utterly fails to understand the work of Cyrus as depicted in Isaiah’s prophecies.
23. Sellin: op. cit., pp. 191, 192, “So ist das Ganze ein Trostwort an den Propheten, daher die Wiederholung des jozi mischpat, die Wiederholung des Nichtzerbrechens und Nichtverlöschens, ehe das Ziel erreicht ist. In seiner grossen Not erhält er von Gott die Verheissung, dass sein Leben noch nicht abgeschlossen ist, dass er die Krönung seines Werks, den Erfolg seines Hinausrufens des göttlichen Wortes zu alien Völkern, die Aufrichtung der Gottesherrschaft auf der Erde noch erleben wird, wenn er auch augen-blicklich nicht mehr reden darf oder kann. Der Gott der Barmherzigkeit zerbricht kein schon geknicktes Rohr. Der Ebed hat nun einmal den Gottesgeist erhalten, und der wird seine Wirkung unfehlbar ausüben vgl. 5511”.
24. The other passages to which Sellin makes appeal, in like manner, do not support him.
25. The only exception; of course, is in the use of הִנַּה plus the objective, pronominal suffix of the first, common singular, e.g., הִנְּנִי; but the very fact that the language possesses this specific form for directing attention to the speaker is evidence that when this form is not used, the speaker desires to direct attention to someone or something apart from himself.
26. In uttering these words the prophet was discharging his prophetic duty. That is, as a mediator, he was declaring the Word of God unto the people. He was God’s spokesman to others. The message was intended, primarily, not for himself but for others.
27. The verb is probably to be pointed יַרוֹחּ from רָצַחּ. The LXX has θραυσθήσεται (Ziegler’s manuscript no. 91 reads θλασθήσεται and Sinaiticus has σβεσθήσεται.) The Vulgate reads curret.
28. Sellin thinks that with the three verbs of 2a an עוֹד should be understood. This, of course, is subjective and is merely introduced to support his theory. The words of 2a refer, upon the natural reading, to one whose task lies yet in the future.
29. Sellin translates, “Ein zerknicktes Rohr zerbreche ‘ich’ nicht, und einen glimmenden Docht lösche ‘ich’ nicht aus”.
30. The suffix in תּוֹרָתוֹ can refer only to the subject of the three preceding verbs, namely, the Servant. Sellin’s statement, “.. . der Prophet als der Vermittler des gottlichen Worts, der göttlichen mischpat und thorah ausdrücklich genannt wird” (op. cit., p. 191) is certainly incorrect as far as verse 4 is concerned.
31. op. cit., p. 194, “Da hat er von diesem eine erneute Ehrung und Stärkung erfahren, die ihn über alles hinweghob: Feierlich hat Gott ihm versichert, dass er einen noch viel weiter reichenden, ungleich grösseren Beruf habe als den an Israel, nämlich Licht der Völker zu setn, dass dieser in Gottes Weltplan vorgesehene Beruf selbstverständlich Erfolg haben werde, urn so sicherer dann aber auch — das liegt ohne weiteres hierin vgl. Jer. 1 5 — der beschränktere Beruf an seinem Volke”.
32. Duhm: Das Buck Jesaia, Gottingen, 1922, p. 368. For a discussion of other attempts to deal with this difficult word, the various commentaries may be consulted. There is no point in considering them here. Suffice it to say that they give the impression of being truly embarrassed and desperate attempts to avoid the plain meaning of the word.
33. Jeremiah’s call was not similar, as a mere reading of Jeremiah 1:10 makes clear. The work set before Jeremiah does not begin to compare in magnitude with that of the Servant.
34. Sellin also seeks to support his autobiographical interpretation by appeal to the following: Isaiah 40:6; 41:27; 44:26; 48:16f.; 51:14, 16; 52:7.
35. op. tit., p. 210, “.. . die Komposition des Liedes als Liturgie mit wechselnden Stimmen — 52 13–15 Gottesrede, 53 l-11a Leichen- und Busslied des im Namen des Volkes redenden Propheten, 53 11b, 12 wieder Gottesrede—ebenfalls für die tritojesajanische Autorschaft spricht.”
36. op. cit., p. 211, “.. . der Prophet sagt weder etwas von einer Aufer-stehung, noch von einer Wiederkehr der nefesch des Ebed aus der Scheol, es ist also gewiss, dass er iiber das Wie des Wunders, das er erwartete, nichts weiter zu sagen gewusst hat, ihm hat der Gedanke genügt: der Getötete wird wieder Ieiblich unter uns sein und Gottes Plan, den er einst verkündigt hat, verwirklichen, die Endzeit herbeiführen.”
37. For illustrations of the force of the verb, cf. I Samuel 18:5; II Kings 18:7 and Jeremiah 23:5.
38. So also the versions: LXX, συνήσει; Vulgate, intelliget.
39. Quoted from the writer’s article, “The Interpretation of יזה in Isaiah 52:15”, The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. Ill, pp. 125-132.
40. Sellin translates, “So werden sich viele seinetwegen ‘erregen’”, i. e., he would read נּוֹיִם יִרְגְּזוּ. According to this translation, the nations will become excited because of him, not merely because of some message proclaimed to them about him.
41. It should be noted that Sellin does not maintain the strict force of the perfects in 52:15b. He translates, “Weil sie Nieerzähltes sehen, nie Gehörtes erfahren”.
42. So Sellin, “erfahren”.
43. The seriousness of this description precludes reference to a mere prophet. How, possibly, can a phrase such as עָלָיו יִקְפְּצוּ מְלָכִים פִּיהָם be employed with reference to the sufferings of a mere prophet? Either the writer was a deluded person, in which case the prophecy can be of little benefit to us, or else he was speaking with an earnestness that ill accords with Sellin’s hypothesis.
44. So also the versions: LXX, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει (one ms., no. 534, reads ανησει); the Vulgate has, in scientia sua iustificabit ipse iustus servus meus multos, et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit.
45. At least they do not stand in the way of the future interpretation, as is sometimes maintained.
46. Why, also, did not “Second” Isaiah identify himself in chapters 42, 49 and 50? His silence is particularly strange when we consider that he does identify Cyrus, another supposed “contemporary”.
47. Although the Scripture speaks of Moses in high terms, it never portrays him as free from sin. Perhaps Psalm 106:33 sets forth the opinion that was commonly held about Moses’ smiting of the rock. Here he is regarded as a good man who, upon a specific occasion, sinned.