2 Corinthians 6:2: Paul’s Eschatological “Now” And Hermeneutical Invitation

By Mark Gignilliat

[Mark Gignilliat is Tutor in New Testament and Greek at Wycliffe Hall, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.]

I. Introduction

Allusions to and citations of the OT are peppered throughout Paul’s most autobiographical of letters, 2 Corinthians. This observation has led Ford and Young to the conclusion that the Paul found in 2 Corinthians is a Paul who has “lived in the Bible.”[1] This phrase “living in the Bible” is an apt description of the apostle as he theologizes and reflects on the significance of Jesus Christ and his own particular role to the Gentiles. It is in this capacity that no OT book serves Paul better than Isaiah.[2] Our attention, therefore, turns to Paul and Isaiah in 2 Cor 6:2, as we seek to understand the ways in which Paul is living both in the sacred text and in the eschatologically realized moment.

As late as 1989, Jan Lambrecht lamented that “relatively little attention is paid to the Isaiah quotation” in 2 Cor 6:2.[3] Commentaries charged on this account include the “recent voluminous commentary of Furnish” coupled with several other commentaries and studies listed.[4] Lambrecht sought to correct this oversight with an analysis of 2 Cor 6:2 that took into account both the context of Isa 49:8 and the christological reading Paul gives to the verse. He concludes, “Paul uses Is 49, 8a to show that the Isaian promise of salvation is fulfilled in Christ.”[5] More recent accounts of 2 Cor 6:2, and its surrounding context, have emphasized the Isaianic context of the quotation and its implications for Paul’s own self-understanding Observing that Isa 49:8 is found within the context of the second of the so-called “servant songs,”[6] Beale and Webb have concluded that Paul identifies himself with the Servant, that is, Paul has taken on the unique role of the Servant in this passage.[7] Thus, Lambrecht’s two stated categories of Pauline motivation for the Isaiah quotation are, mutatis mutandis, still the same today:

(1) By means of the O.T. saying, Paul is referring to what the Servant of Yahweh in Deutero-Isaiah had to do; he is thus implying that his (or Jesus’?) status and work are the same as that of the Servant. Paul is defending himself in this way. (2). .. Paul stresses by means of his quotation the time aspect, i.e., the eschatological importance of this very moment.[8]

These two options need not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Beale has emphasized both aspects in his article: “That is, the ‘favourable time’ and the ‘day of salvation’ (v. 13a) are explained to be the time of coming restoration.”[9] This is not the end of the matter for Beale. He continues, “In radical fashion Paul applies to himself a prophecy of the Isaianic Servant, probably in order to identify himself with that figure. He is in some way the fulfillment of the righteous ‘Servant, Israel’ (Isa 49. 3) who was to proclaim restoration to sinful Israel.”[10] Lambrecht, on the other hand, emphasizes the eschatological now of Christ’s redemptive work as the primary thrust of Paul’s quotation. His terse response to any identification of Paul with the Servant is, “We do not think so.”[11]

In short, this article seeks to address the concerns raised by Lambrecht and Beale related to Paul’s quotation of Isa 49:8 in 2 Cor 6:2. It will be argued that the thrust of Lambrecht’s article is to be accepted, that is, an emphasis on the eschatological now. And the sensibilities of Beale are to be heeded: Isa 40–55 (66) is the backdrop for Paul’s thought, though Beale’s particular identification of Paul with the Servant seems misplaced. Added to the eschatological dimension of Paul’s quotation is a possible third option and the primary concern of this article. Paul’s quotation of Isa 49:8 is the hermeneutical key to the surrounding context of 2 Cor 5:14–6:10, that is, Paul by means of the quotation is inviting the reader into the larger redemptive drama of Isa 40–66 as the theological/eschatological undergirding of his thought. Though Lambrecht gives a nod in this direction, his position is attenuated because of his lack of emphasis on the literary movement of the Servant theme in Isa 40–55 and its theological foundation for Paul’s thought in 2 Cor 5:14–21. Our attention is now given to Isa 49 per se and its location in Isaiah’s redemptive movement.

II. Isaiah 49 and the Isaianic Redemptive Drama

Isaiah 49 marks a turn within the dramatic narrative of Isa 40–55. An emphasis begins to emerge in this chapter on “forgetting the former things” and giving heed to the “new things.”[12] What also becomes more apparent within the flow of the narrative is the emerging of the Servant as the central dramatis personae of God’s new redemptive activity. Isaiah 40 begins with God’s speech of deliverance and comfort for his people (נחמו נחמו) in a scene of commissioning—a commissioning that does not focus on a particular personage behind the text (the text is strangely evasive) but focuses on the continuing authority and effectiveness of the Word of God (Isa 40:1–6).[13] Upon hearing the words of eschatological comfort the people respond with a cry for justice from their God (Isa 40:27).[14] With a remarkable turn of narrative events, the answer to the people’s cry receives no response until Isa 42:1–4, the first of the so-called “servant songs.”[15] In this first servant song, the Servant/Israel is commissioned to be the one who will bring justice not strictly to Israel but to the nations.[16] A textual pressure is beginning to mount within the narrative as God’s new redemptive activity both for Israel and the nations is centering on the particular divine agency of the Servant.

Isaiah 49 is a key chapter for our understanding of both Paul’s reading of the dramatic narrative of Isa 40–55 (66) and also for our understanding of the development of the Servant theme in Isaiah’s own canonical form. The actual parameters of the servant song are most likely Isa 49:1–6, though the Servant motif continues to 49:12. Undoubtedly this servant song is a difficult one with which to deal as a series of questions are raised, especially regarding the identity of the Servant. Also it should be observed that within the narrative, the speaker in this section is the Servant himself.[17]

Without rehearsing the various form-critical suggestions for 49:1–6—for example, thanksgiving, call narrative, or commissioning—it is noted that there is an apparent tension in the passage itself. In 49:3 the Servant is called Israel, yet in 49:5–6 the Servant has a particular role toward Israel. Wilcox and Paton-Williams have thoroughly challenged the view that “Israel” in 49:3 is an interpolation.[18] Therefore, the interpreter is left with an apparent tension of sorts, “Is the servant Israel, or the prophet, or what?”[19]

One of the achievements of Childs’s recent commentary is his making accessible to an English-speaking world the fresh and stimulating work of Beuken.[20] Beuken’s proposal for our understanding of Isa 49:1–6, as explicated by Childs, is to place 49:1–6 “in the inner movement of the prophetic narrative extending from chapter 40 to chapter 55.”[21] One notes the parallels between 49:1–6 and 42:1–4, although a great deal has taken place textually between these two texts. Cyrus has come onto the scene as an example of God’s faithfulness to his people (44:24–28; 45:1), and the Babylonian deities have been exposed as impotent before Israel’s God (chs. 46–47). It is recalled that in 42:1–6 Israel is given a specific role in the midst of this divine reordering of affairs; they are to establish justice on the earth and be a light to the nations. Yet Israel has not fulfilled her role in the new exodus. “Hear you deaf; look, you blind, and see! Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send?” (Isa 42:18–19). In ch. 48 the stubbornness and rebelliousness of the people are rehearsed with strong language, “You were called a rebel from birth” (48:8).[22] Within the narrative flow of God’s redemptive drama, it becomes more apparent that the role Israel was given to perform as “light to the nations” was not being fulfilled nor would it be fulfilled by those who had been rebellious from birth. This contextual backdrop of Israel’s calling as servant, yet persistence in rebellion shapes our reading and hearing of 49:1–6.

With the apparent failure of Israel to fulfill her role placed firmly in the context of 49:1–6, our attention turns toward 49:3, “You are my servant, Israel.. . .” The options for understanding the function of “Israel” are four: interpolation, vocative, appositive, or predicative.[23] Recognizing the context, several recent interpreters have opted for the predicative position: “You are my Servant, you are Israel. “[24] What begins to emerge in the development of the Servant theme is an individual taking the role originally designated for Israel as Israel. In autobiographical style, the Servant rehearses his frustration and weariness in delivering the message of the new exodus to the exiles, while at the same time Yahweh rehearses for the Servant his new role. Not only will he restore God’s people Israel (“it is too small a thing”), he will also be a “light to the Gentiles that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (49:6).[25] In eschatological fashion, Isa 49:1–6 anticipates the Servant’s taking of Israel’s role as light to the nations with the ultimate goal of bringing salvation to the ends of the earth.[26]

The following verses (49:7–12) raise a host of questions regarding redactional layering, who is being addressed, and who is speaking. At 49:7 Yahweh interjects his own statement regarding the Servant’s humiliation and exaltation (the conceptual linkage to 52:13–53:12 echoes loudly). Within the narrative flow there is silence pertaining to the identity of the speaker for the Lord. If the Lord is continuing to speak to the Servant, confusion is raised pertaining to the use of the second person singular (“you”) in this section as compared to the first person singular in 49:1–6 (“me”). What is observed within the contextual flow is that Yahweh is continuing to speak to the Servant. But who adds this elaboration within the narrative at this point? Seitz makes an interesting proposal and one that fits well within the narrative flow of the larger redemptive drama of Isa 40–66. “Rather, it is an elaboration,” suggests Seitz, “made by the servants, promising that God’s intention with the servant will finally prevail.”[27] Seitz bases his reading on the conclusion of ch. 54 (v. 17) which states, “This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their vindication from me, says the Lord.” What is taking place is a backward look at the suffering of the Servant who has become a “covenant of the people,” that is, the one who in connection with the first servant song is a light to the nations and the restorer of Israel.

Our attention, again, is drawn to 49:8, a verse that stands as an eschatological marker. As Childs remarks, “The phrase ‘in an hour of favor’ resonates with the ‘but now’ of v. 5 and speaks of the eschatological moment of salvation in God’s time.”[28] Thus, ch. 49 stands as a key marker in God’s eschatological, redemptive drama. The text itself, within the literary flow, is beginning to pressure the reader to recognize an individual who emerges as the one embodying the vocation of Israel as light to the nations and restorer of Israel. In both his suffering and exaltation (49:7) Yahweh makes his “new thing” come about in the most provocative of fashions. Yet, we are reminded that in spite of this provocative move by God, the reader is to expect something “new”.

The reader of Isa 40–55 would also be remiss to isolate Isa 49 from the later development within the narrative. Contextually Isa 40–55 centers on the Servant as mediator of God’s new redemptive activity for Zion and the nations. Most specifically, the Servant emerges as one who suffers on behalf of and in the stead of others (Isa 52:13–53:12). The eschatological salvation depicted in Isa 40–55’s internal logic has its denouement in the presentation of the suffering Servant of Isa 53 who vicariously suffers for the sins of others resulting in a righteous offspring (Isa 53:10).

III. Paul’s Plain Sense Reading

Having noted some of the narrative dimensions of Isa 49 within its literary context, our attention now turns to 2 Cor 6:2. A convergence of theological dynamics is observed between 2 Cor 6:2 and Isa 49.

Paul’s quotation of Isa 49:8 in 2 Cor 6:2 follows closely the comment made by Paul in 6:1. The γάρ of 6:2 operates in a causal function. Thus, Paul’s train of thought in 6:2 flows from his statement in 6:1. A question is raised with respect to the participle συνεργοῦντες in 6:1. With whom exactly is Paul “working together”? Two options have been suggested among interpreters: (1) other teachers and (2) the Corinthians.[29] A third option, and the one found most convincing by the majority of scholars, is that Paul is “working together” with God.

In 2 Cor 5:20 Paul refers to himself as an ambassador for Christ whose ambassadorial work took place as God was pleading through him (actually “us,” 5:20: ώς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι ᾿ ήμῶν). Now in 6:1 Paul is beseeching (παρακαλοῦμεν) the Corinthians. Paul’s apostolic work flows from his “fellow-working” with God. In other words, Paul’s plea to the Corinthian church is God’s plea.[30]

The instigating factor of Paul’s beseeching or pleading is directly related to the attitude with which the Corinthian believers received the grace of God. In 5:14–21, Paul displays in glorious fashion the work of God in Christ on behalf of humanity, of which the Corinthians were recipients. Why would Paul be so adamant about the Corinthians’ not receiving the grace of God in vain? Because the current era in which they live is the eschatological now of God’s work in Jesus Christ (6:2). Paul’s beseeching of the Corinthian church is, according to 6:1, the actual beseeching of God through Paul. Thus, Paul moves from v. 1 to v. 2 and uses a Scripture citation to further his claim.

Attention has been given to the referent of the σου and σοι of 6:2 and Isa 49:8 (LXX).[31] It should be noted, however, that within Isa 49 the referent of these second person pronouns is “the one deeply despised and abhorred by the nations” (Isa 49:7), that is, the Servant. As has been mentioned, this identification has led certain scholars to the conclusion that Paul identifies himself with the σου and σοι of the Isaianic quotation.[32] To read the quotation in this particular light—Paul is the Servant—presses beyond Paul’s own explanation in 6:2b. The referent of the second person pronoun is not the central concern with which Paul is dealing. Though Lambrecht makes a good case that Paul reads the pronouns ecclesiologically this seems, at best, a peripheral issue at this point.[33] Paul tells the readers in 6:2 his purpose of text-choice in the following way: ἰδοὺ νῦν καιρὸς εὐπόσδεκτος, ἰδοὺ νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας (behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation).

Paul’s concern in this particular passage is his emphasis on the eschatological “now” of God’s work in Christ. Particular issues of identification are not present here, though the work of the Servant looms largely in the background (5:14–21). What is present is the larger universalistic vision of God’s salvation for both Israel and the nations, a vision both Paul and Isaiah share. Paul is revealing to his listeners their privileged position in God’s eschatological, climactic redemption, and no other OT book serves Paul’s purposes better than Isaiah. The overlap between Isaiah and Paul is so great that Westermann says, “The time of service is past, that of salvation is dawning. When Paul took over these words of v. 8 and used them in 2 Cor 6:2, he gave them the exact sense that they have here.”[34]What Isaiah alluded to as a coming day—a day centered on the work of the Servant—is for Paul a present day—centered on the work of Christ.[35] Paul’s eschatological reading of Isa 40–55 is a reading that is faithful to the plain sense of the text—a reading that is a careful listening to the internal logic of the text without a disjunction between the literal sense and its figural capacity.[36] It is not surprising to find a lack of historical interest in Paul’s reading of Isaiah. In this, Paul is reading Isaiah with canonical faithfulness, that is, the prophetic text by nature of its canonical placement is in a sense historically relativized so as to be received by future generations as a stable communicator of God’s continuing authoritative word and faithful communicator regarding its ultimate subject matter, namely, Jesus Christ.[37]

Beyond this eschatological reading of Isa 49:8 per se, Paul seems to be doing more. An example of Paul’s hermeneutical invitation into the larger narrative of the biblical text quoted is observed in 2 Cor 3. Chapter 3 has proven an exegetical battleground for interpreters of Paul. Debates typically center on key interpretive issues, such as the relationship between γράμμα and πνεῦμα in 3:6 coupled with Paul’s view of the Mosaic covenant or the Law. Our purpose at this point is not to enter into the debate with the various interlocutors on this complex subject.[38] What should be noted, however, is Paul’s use of the Mosaic tradition in Exod 32–34 as normative support for his claims. We do not necessarily find Paul proof-texting his way through the argument, but thinking deeply on the larger narrative structure and significance of the Mosaic story of Exod 32–34.[39]

Hafemann’s illuminating work on 2 Cor 3 takes seriously the narrative context of the Exodus story in its final canonical form, and for Hafemann Paul also takes this narrative context seriously. Though Paul is working within a “pre-critical” framework in his use of Exodus—that is, Paul assumes a literary unity with no distinction between the literal meaning and its historical referent—we do not find Paul manipulating the Mosaic narrative. Rather, he is faithful to its canonical form. Paul uses the text typologically or “figurally” but this does not necessitate a destruction of the text’s “plain sense.” Hafemann refers to Frei in the following way: “For as Frei has pointed out, a ‘figural’ or typological reading of the biblical narrative, which we certainly have in part in 2 Cor 3 (cf 4:14), depends for its very existence and credibility upon a prior literal reading of the story.”[40] Frei reminds the modern interpreter that that plain sense, or the sensus literalis, is not merely a historical sense but a reading of the text in light of its figural capacity to witness to the Scripture’s ultimate subject matter, Jesus Christ.[41]

What Hafemann has shown, apart from the methodological conclusions he derives from Paul’s use of the OT, is Paul’s deep reflection on the narrative structure of Exod 32–34 and the transposition of his reflections into the argument of 2 Cor 3. “Finally, it must be recognized that for Paul, Exodus 32–34 is not simply a story, but a biblical narrative. This means, above all, that the interpreter must be alert to the theological intention and significance of the story”[42] As modern interpreters, it is healthy for us to remember that for Paul the theological sense, or the figural sense, is not necessarily dichotomized from the plain sense.[43] Hafemann’s nuanced argument offers keen insight into both the textual and theological issues pertaining to 2 Cor 3. What is taken from Hafemann is a programmatic framework of reading the biblical texts as Paul read them. The Exodus narrative is a biblical narrative with abiding theological significance in the flow of God’s providential ordering of history.

As with Paul’s reflection on the larger narrative of Exod 32–34 in 2 Cor 3, so does Paul reflect on the larger narrative of Isa 40–55 (66) within our present text and context, 5:14–7:1.[44] For in 2 Cor 5:14–21, Paul alludes to the Isaianic vision of God’s new eschatological time-table (2 Cor 5:17), and the emerging figure of God’s reconciling activity centers on the person and work of the divine agent, Jesus Christ. In Isaiah, God works by means of his agent, the Servant, in the bringing of salvation to Israel and the nations by the vicarious suffering of an innocent one through whom the new day is inaugurated, that is, the new creation. For Paul, this activity has taken place in the work of Jesus Christ: he died for all (5:14); he inaugurates the new creation (5:17); he is the divine agent of reconciliation (5:18–19); and he is the innocent sin-bearer who brings righteousness to sinful mankind (5:21).[45] Paul’s eschatological/figural reading of Isa 40–55 (66) finds its touchstone in the central figure of the drama, the Servant, as most realized in the eschatological now in Christ.[46] In other words, the message of the Servant of Isa 40–55 is for Paul the gospel in figural form.

A figural presentation of God’s current activity in Christ as presented in 2 Cor 5:14–21 is active in the narrative drama and movement of Isa 40–55. Scripture, for Paul, has abiding theological and eschatological significance, and Isaiah is the viva vox Dei for the present generation as they listen faithfully to the continuing word of God mediated through the textual witness. Lambrecht’s article is necessarily attenuated because of the lack of emphasis on the larger movement of Isaiah’s presentation of the Servant. The Servant suffers and dies in the place of and on the behalf of others with the result of a righteous offspring (Isa 53:10). Paul’s emphasis in 2 Cor 5:21 overlaps significantly with Isaiah’s presentation of the suffering Servant. Christ, in sinlessness, dies for the sins of others resulting in a righteous offspring. The quotation of Isaiah in 2 Cor 6:2 flows from this statement in 5:21 and is the tip of a much larger iceberg under-girding Paul’s theological thought, namely, Isa 40–55’s presentation of the identity of God’s suffering Servant.

The Servant’s narrative identity is an important aspect to examine briefly.[47] Within the developmental nature of the Servant theme in Isa 40–55, the Servant emerges as one intricately connected to Yahweh. Richard Bauckham, in his recent work on christology has drawn startling conclusions from his observation of the intertextual link between Isa 6:1 and Isa 52:13.[48] “The servant, in both his humiliation and exaltation, is therefore not a human figure distinguished from God, but, in both his humiliation and exaltation, belongs to the unique identity of God.”[49] Bauckham argues, speculating about God on the basis of God’s narrative identity, that the Servant in his work and mission is a part of the very identity of the one God who is seeking to reconcile the world unto himself. Therefore, the Servant is a part of the unique identity of God. The Servant’s mission is God’s mission; the Servant is God’s means of redeeming his people and drawing in the nations. One catches a glimpse in the narrative identity of the Servant a figure whose entire being and reason for existence is to carry out obediently the will of God’s redemptive purposes. The language used to describe the Servant’s obedient and passive actions are extraordinary when thought of being tied to a human personage.[50] As Isaiah reminds us, however, this is the astonishingly new, redemptive act of God. In the end, Barth may have a final word for our reading of the Servant:

The question whether this partner, the servant of the Lord, is meant as collective Israel or as a single person—and if so, which? a historical? or an eschatological?—can never be settled, because probably it does not have to be answered either the one way or the other. This figure may well be both an individual and also the people, and both of them in a historical and also an eschatological form. What is certain is that in and with this servant of the Lord Israel as such is at any rate introduced also as the partner of Yahweh.[51]

In other words, God was reconciling the world by means of the Servant.[52]

IV Conclusion

Paul’s quotation of Isa49:8in 2 Cor 6:2 is an eschatological reading of the text in its plain sense that is faithful to its final canonical form and an invitation into the eschatological world of Isa 40-55 (66), a text that for Paul has abiding theological/eschatological significance for our understanding of Christ’s person and mission.[53] For Paul, the eschatological now of God’s new redemptive activity by means of His Servant has been realized and is continuing to be realized in the person and work of Christ—in this sense, Paul really is “living in the Bible.”[54] That Paul identifies the Servant as a part of the very identity of God (cf. Phil 2) and as fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:14–21) coupled with a typological clashing within such a close proximity (2 Cor 5:14–21 and 2 Cor 6:2) makes the position of Paul’s identification of himself as the Servant untenable.[55] The typological weight of the Servant as righteous sin-bearer and member of the identity of God is too much for Paul to carry. For Paul, only Jesus could carry this task.[56] As to Paul’s particular identity as typified in the dramatic narrative of Isa 40–66, this is a topic for further exploration.[57]

The author wishes to thank Dr. Bruce Longenecker for his generous interaction with this article; his careful eye is always appreciated. A form of this article was presented at the British New Testament Conference, 2003, where Dr. Barry Matlock kindly accepted it for oral presentation, and the interaction from the Pauline Studies Group was both stimulating and insightful.

Notes

1. Frances Young and David Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1987), 63.
2. Richard Hays, Who Has Believed Our Message: Paul s Reading of Isaiah, SBL Seminar Papers, 1998 (2 vols.; SBLSP 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 1:205–25.
3. Jan Lambrecht, The Favorable Time: A Study of 2 Cor 6, 2a in Its Context, in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus (ed. H. Frankemo¨lle and K. Kertelge; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 377.
4. Lambrecht, “Favorable Time,” 377 n. 3. To the list I would add the commentaries by Martin and Thrall. In all fairness, commentaries have to be selective in the issues addressed both exegetically and theologically or they would either turn into a voluminous tome or an uncompleted project. Lambrecht’s recent commentary on 2 Cor interacts with the Isaiah quotation but is substantially in line with his previous work (Jan Lambrecht, Second Corinthians [SP 8; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999], 108–9).
5. Lambrecht, ‘Favorable Time, 390.
6. Lambrecht understands Isa 49:6 to be the end of the song (“Favorable Time, 379). On the other hand, Childs’s recent commentary states, “Although the term servant is not used in vv. 4–9, the larger context, before and after, removes any possible doubt that the speaker is the servant” (Brevard Childs, Isaiah [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 394). Childs is persuasive on this score.
7. G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1, ” NTS 35 (1989): 550-81, reprinted in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. G. K. Beale; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 217–47. My pagination will correspond to the NTS article. William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Contextfor 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). For clarity’s sake my chief interlocutor for the “Servant-Identification” position will be Beale. Webb’s thesis, though not dependant on Beale, affirms the basic conclusions of Beale. Others have identified Paul with the Servant of Isa 40–55. See David M. Stanley, “The Theme of the Servant of Yahweh in Primitive Christian Soteriology and Its Transposition by St. Paul,” CBQ16 (1954): 385-425; Alexander Kerrigan, “Echoes of Themes from the Servant Songs in Pauline Theology,” in Studorium Paulinorium Congressus Internationalis (AnBib 17–18; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 217–28; Paul Dinter, “Paul and the Prophet Isaiah,” BTB 13 (1983): 48-52.
8. Lambrecht, "Favorable Time," 378–79. Lambrecht finds the first position untenable.
9. Beale, "Old Testament Background," 561–62.
10. Ibid., 563.
11. Lambrecht, ‘Favorable Time, 386. Lambrecht cites Hanson s comment, Paul would certainly understand this passage (Is 49, 1–8) as applying primarily to Christ, the original servant.” A. T Hanson, The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St Paul (JSNTSup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 39.
12. Christopher R. Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66” (NIB 6; Nashville: Abington Press, 2001), 328; and Figured Out: Typology and Prophecy in Christian Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 112-13.
13. Childs, Isaiah, 295–96. Childs leans on Seitz’s work, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229-47. Childs diverges from Seitz with regards to the voice of Isaiah. For Seitz, the voice of Isaiah is relegated to the distant past and the message of the new is given by “various anonymous voices.” Childs understands that Isaiah of Jerusalem is both the proclaimer of the “old things” and the “new things.” “ The message of the prologue is that, although the prophetic judgment has been fulfilled, Isaiah’s word of future salvation is now about to be accomplished in the new things. The continuity between chs. 1–39 and 40ff does not lie in the historical persona of Isaiah—in this Seitz is right—but rather in the word of God, faithfully proclaimed by Isaiah, which extends into the future and fulfills itself in the new things of which Isaiah had also spoken” (Childs, Isaiah, 297). In light of Seitz’s essay, “How Is the Prophet Present in the Latter Half of the Book?” in Word Without End (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1998), 168–93, I wonder whether Childs has rightly read Seitz on this score. It seems Seitz has developed in his thinking on the presence of Isaiah in Isa 40–66. Seitz states, “To the question, How is the prophet Isaiah present in chs. 40–66? we would respond thus: in word in chs. 40–48 and in person in chs. 49ff—but not by himself. Isaiah, together with his fellow ‘servants the prophets’ running all the way back to Moses, is represented by the servant who speaks up in ch. 49, reflecting on hard labor, futility, yet trust in the one who called from the womb” (“How Is the Prophet,” 189).
14. The term משׁפת is notoriously difficult to translate with precision. Renaud states that it can refer to “an act of deciding or judging; a legal decision; the contents of this decision; the judgment itself; the right (of an individual or a group); a statute; a bond; equity; that which is just and right; the law, commandment, or custom (most often in the plural)” (cited in Thomas L. Leclerc, Yahweh Is Exaltedin Justice: Solidarity and Conflictin Isaiah [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001], 105). Leclerc has given detailed attention to the different ways משׁפת is used in Isaiah. In Isa 40–55, משׁפת is intricately connected to the sovereignty of God (pp. 108-9). “The mission of the Servant is to bring forth to the world YHWH’s justice, that is, his just and unrivaled sovereignty” (p. 110).
15. See Childs, Isaiah, 324. Beuken’s article is a programmatic statement for the ways in which the “servant songs” are related to the context of Isa 40–55: W. A. M. Beuken, “MISPAT: The First Servant Song in Its Context,” VT22 (1972): 1-30. See also Klaus Koch, The Prophets, Vol. 2: The Babylonian and Persian Periods (trans. M. Kohl; London: SCM Press, 1983), 137.
16. Without doubt, the role of the nations in Isa 40–66 is a deeply complex issue. One’s particular conclusions in the debate are at least informed, if not slightly determined, by certain theological or historical commitments. I must confess that I am surely not immune from this “plight”—if one considers certain commitments a plight. The most recent article on the subject is by Joel Kaminsky “The Concept of Election and Second Isaiah: Recent Literature,” BTB 31 (2002): 135-44. Kaminsky traces the debate from Rowely to Levenson as he challenges a certain paradigm that espouses the Jewish religion as particularistic and Christianity as universal. Kaminsky argues that both Christianity and early Judaism are in a sense particularistic (p. 136). From this discussion, Kaminsky moves to Second Isaiah. Two groups of scholars arise in the conversation, those who think Second Isaiah is universalistic and those who find it nationalistic (p. 139). Kaminsky does not believe a consensus will be reached at present (that is, on Second Isaiah); however, he does press the need for a better understanding of “particularity” Kaminsky’s concern in the article, and this becomes more obvious as one reads, is not a better understanding of Second Isaiah’s view of the nations and Israel per se but of the wrongheaded thinking that “universalism is all good and particularity or nationalism is all bad” (p. 140). Thus, Kaminsky’s article is helpful on the theological front as Judaism and Christianity deal seriously with their own particularity in a pluralist society and ideology that would seek to blunt all edges of particularity (pp. 142-43). Our attention needs to turn to Isaiah, however. Gelston has taken seriously those scholars who challenge a universalism in Isa 40–66—e.g., Orlinsky and Whybray— while at the same time he affirms the universal implications of Second Isaiah. Isa 45:20–25 “strongly suggests that the survivors are Gentiles themselves, worshippers of idol-gods, who are shown not to be real gods precisely because of their inability to save” (A. Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” JTS 43 [1992]: 387). Gelston challenges Whybray’s tortuous exegesis of Isa 45:22 concluding that, “The invitation to ‘all the ends of the earth’ is to turn to YHWH and be saved, because he is the only real God” (p. 389). Gelston affirms a universalism in Isa 40–55 that contains three strands: (1) the affirmation that YHWH is the only true God; (2) this truth will be recognized by the Gentile nations no less than by Israel, with the corollary that they will submit to him and acknowledge his universal rule; and (3) nowhere does the prophet affirm that all will avail themselves of this offer (p. 396). See also Childs, Isaiah, 356. Gelston (“Universalism,” 397) concludes, “I still believe what I wrote in 1965 to be true: ‘the prophet discerned in moments of high vision the glorious fact that Yahweh’s salvation was for all the world, while at other times he sank back to a more traditional and superior attitude towards the Gentiles.’ It seems to be the case that this prophet recognized that the corollary of his conviction that YHWH was the only real god was that he was also ‘God of all the earth’ (54:5).” Van Winkle seeks to resolve the tension between universalism and nationalism by observing that “for Deutero-Isaiah the salvation of the nations does not preclude their submission to Israel” (Daniel Van Winkle, “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh in Isaiah xl-lv,” VT 35 [1985]: 457); see also David Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 226–27. Childs (Isaiah, 392–93), commenting on Isa 49:24, keenly addresses the issue of nationalism vs. universalism with the following: “Yet it is highly misleading to set up a polarity between passages allegedly universalistic and those of ethnic narrowness. Much turns on the specific issue at stake in the oracle. If the prophet is addressing the scope of God’s salvific will toward his creation, the free inclusion of the nations is an integral part of the prophet’s message. However, if the issue turns on rival claims of power and authority exercised by the mighty and powerful rulers of the world, then the harshest possible rejection of their pretensions is made. Yahweh alone is Lord and Redeemer, who tolerates no rival either on heaven or earth.” Seitz affirms both the centripetal and centrifugal aspects of Israel’s fulfilling of the covenant with Abraham. Seitz’s conclusion in his chapter, “The Old Testament, Mission, and Christian Scripture,” in Figured Out, 156, needs to be stated in full: “The servants who suffer in imitation of their master, the one called to be the Israel after God’s own heart in chapter 49, are separated from their persecutors within the household of God. The categories Israel and nations, servant and goyim, are not undone in God’s final missionary act of conjoining But both undergo massive transformation, within what the prophet can call only a new creation, a new heaven and earth. The end of Isaiah returns to the beginning and speaks of a new day and a new created order of affairs. The ending vision is what one might call the eschatological completion of God’s missionary act: His willed and sovereign intention to put what created humanity makes awry good and in full accordance with a design nothing in heaven and earth can thwart. He will get his way with his world, through the plan of election and its final transformation through the suffering and death of his servant Israel.” In short, Isa 40–66 is not at all entirely clear as to the exact relationship between Israel and the nations. With that said, however, it is affirmed with Seitz that Isaiah is painting an eschatological picture of God’s new redemptive act for both Israel and the nations that can be called nothing other than a new creation (Isa 65:17). Are the nations subsumed under Israel or incorporated into Israel? This seems to fit with Paul’s understanding, e.g., Rom 9–11, yet Isaiah is not perfectly clear on this score. Perhaps clarity comes best by a retrospective reading that takes into account God’s concrete action in Christ and its universal implications. For our purposes it is enough to affirm the universal implications of God’s new redemptive act while at the same time affirming the fact that not all will embrace this invitation. See also Walter Zimmerli, The Old Testament and the World (London: SPCK, 1976), 130, 136.
17. Seitz argues that the actual authors of this discourse (assuming he is making the distinction between actual author and implied author) are the servants of the Servant. Though the actual author is difficult to define textually this theme of the “servants of the servant” will emerge as a key component in one’s understanding of the relationship between Isaiah and Paul in 2 Cor 5:14–6:13 (Seitz, “Isaiah 40–66, ” 424). See also n. 57 below.)
18. For the argument for a later addition see Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 209; P. Wilcox and D. Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah,” JSOT42 (1988): 90-91; Seitz, “Isaiah 40–66, ” 429.
19. Wilcox and Paton-Williams, “Servant Songs,” 89.
20. Beuken’s commentary on Isaiah is written in Dutch.
21. Childs, Isaiah, 382.
22. See Ezek 16.
23. Childs, Isaiah, 383–84.
24. Wilcox and Paton-Williams, “Servant Songs, “ 90; Seitz, Isaiah 40–66 429; Childs, Isaiah, 384.
25. Gelston helpfully interacts with the difficulties of translating and interpreting both light to the nations” and “salvation” by examining their usage in 49:1–8 and 51:1–6. Certain scholars—e.g, Whybray—have argued that “light to the nations” in Isa 40–55 refers to the blinding and involuntary yielding of the nations to Yahweh. Gelston, on the other hand, concludes that the use of light in Isa 51:4 parallels the discussion in that verse of il-lin which refers more to illumination than blinding and—citing Van Winkle—that 42:16 and 51:4 refer to “light” as a figure of deliverance from darkness (Gelston, “Universalism,” 393–94). ישׁועתי also refers to “YHWH’s successful and victorious intervention to save, which is announced in verse 5 [ch. 51] as being already under way” (“Universalism,” 395). The question remains, however, as to the extent of this salvation. Does Yahweh intervene to save his own people, or all humankind? Gelston comments on 51:4–6, “That it has the wider dimension is suggested by the immediate sequel in verse 5, announcing that YHWH’s ‘arm will rule the peoples,’ and that the coasts and islands will wait in expectation for this intervention” (“Universalism,” 395). Thus Orlinsky’s definition of ישׁועתי as “victory” “ triumph,” or “vindication” is “too narrow a definition of its semantic range to cover 51:5–6” (“Universalism,” 395).
26. Wilcox and Paton-Williams argue that the servant called Israel is the prophet re-commissioned in this scene (Wilcox and Paton-Williams, “Servant Songs,” 92). Seitz has argued along similar lines in a more nuanced fashion. The servant, for Seitz, is lining up within a tradition of prophets especially that of Jeremiah. “This servant’s career picks up where Jeremiah left off, at the end of his career. That is, it is a mission based on all prior prophecy at its own potential end point and dissolution.. .. This servant carries Israel’s history with prophecy in him and, in so doing, is ‘Israel’ in a very specific sense” (Seitz, “How Is the Prophet,” 188). Childs takes another nuanced view, “I am not suggesting that collective Israel has been replaced by an individual prophetic figure, say, by Second Isaiah himself Such historical speculation misses the point of the text. The identity of the first person singular voice in 48:16 and 49:1–6 remains fully concealed. Rather, what is crucial to observe is that one, bearing all the marks of an individual historical figure, has been named servant, not to replace corporate Israel—the servant in Second Isaiah remains inseparable from Israel—but as a faithful embodiment of the nation Israel who has not performed its chosen role (48:1–2)” (Childs, Isaiah, 385). Whatever may lie behind the historical actuality of this text will continue to be debated. What can be learned from a textual standpoint, however, is that in God’s “new thing” of redemption he does not allow Israel’s failure to hinder God’s program of reconciliation, reconciliation not strictly with Israel (though definitely the case) but reconciliation with the “ends of the earth,” humanity Clements states, “Yet it still retains something of an expectation that Israel’s election is an election for service to bring other nations to a knowledge of Yhwh.” For further reflections on the role of Israel as “servant” to the nations, see Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978), 95–96. The means by which the Servant/Israel will bring salvation to the ends of the earth is by suffering—this becomes explicit in the fourth servant song. Thus, the accomplishment of the Servant’s being a “light to the Gentiles” is based on his faithfulness to Yahweh, a faithfulness that takes form in obedient suffering See Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993); Seitz, “Isaiah 40–66, ” 433, 469.
27. Seitz, “Isaiah 40–66, ” 430.
28. Childs, Isaiah, 386–87.
29. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 164–65.
30. See Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 341; Thrall, II Corinthians, 451.
31. Beale and Webb, as has been observed, recognize the Servant (correctly) as the referent in Isa 49:8 and Paul as the referent in 2 Cor 6:2. It should be noted that the quotation of 6:2 is a verbatim quotation of the LXX; see Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 216–17.
32. As has been observed in Beale and Webb. Lambrecht finds this reading a “hypothetical construction” (Lambrecht, “Favorable Time,” 386). Lane observes that Paul’s use of “prophetic call” language as found in Gal 1:15ff and 2 Cor “indicates that he has been called to the prophetic office” (William L. Lane, “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth,” TynBul 33 [1982]: 7).
33. Lambrecht, “Favorable Time,” 381.
34. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (London: SCM Press, 1969), 215.
35. Traces of this eschatological thought pattern of Paul are found in 2 Cor 1:19–22. Paul, alluding to a specific conflict between him and the Corinthians, portrays God as the faithful God who never draws back from his promises. Paul’s radical christocentrism draws the conclusion that all the promises of God are ναίin Christ (1:20). Though Paul may be alluding to promises found elsewhere in the Second Temple period (see Thrall, IICorinthians, 148), we are assured Paul has in mind the OT salvific promises of God or God’s covenant promises. For Paul, the eschatological climax of God’s redemptive purposes have found their “yes” in Christ. See also Martin, 2 Corinthians, 27. Furnish, following Thusing, states that Paul does not say Christ is the “Yes,” but that God’s promises have their “Yes” in Christ (II Corinthians, 147). Furnish is warning the reader against a static view of God’s promises in Christ in view of the ongoing “event” at work in the life of the community by the Spirit. Though Furnish’s warnings are heeded, there is no reason the interpreter cannot say that Christ is God’s eschatological “Yes.”
36. See Brevard Childs, “The Sensus Literalis: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beitra¨ge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift fur Walther Zimmerli zum 70 Geburstag (Gottingen: Vendenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1977), 80–93. See also John David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 15; Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1–3 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999); Charles Scalise, “The ‘Sensus Literalis’: A Hermeneutical Key to Biblical Exegesis,” SJT42 (1989): 45-65; PaulR. Noble, “The Sensus Literalis: Jowett, Childs, and Barr,” JTS44 (1993): 1-23. On the signum/res distinction see Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 80–84; Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 175.
37. Childs states, To assume that the prophets can be understood only if each oracle is related to a specific historical event or located in its original cultural milieu is to introduce a major hermeneutical confusion into the discipline and to render an understanding of the canonical Scriptures virtually impossible” (Brevard Childs, “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” Int 32 [1978]: 53); see also his “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets,” ZAW108 (1996): 362-77.
38. See Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (WUNT 81; Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1995); L. L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory: Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Cor 3, 1–18 (JSNTSup 52; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); N. T. Wright, “Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3:18, ” in The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 175–92.
39. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 191–95.
40. Ibid., 192.
41. For further elaboration on this point see Hans Frei, T he Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale, 1974), esp. chs. 1–3.
42. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 194.
43. See Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative; Childs, “Retrospective Reading” 362–77, and “Canonical Shape,” 46–55; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Special Revelation and General Hermeneutics,” in Disciplining Hermeneutics (ed. R. Lundin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 163.
44. This paper is dealing mainly with 2 Cor 5:14–6:2.Beale has argued persuasively, in the opinion of this author, that Isaiah serves as the backdrop for Paul’s thought in 2 Cor 5:14–7:1 and has given special attention to the “problem passage” of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 (Beale, “Old Testament Background”). Beale has not argued that 2 Cor 6:2 serves as a hermeneutical key and invitation into the larger drama of Isa 40–55 (66).
45. A detailed examination of Isa 53 and 2 Cor 5:14–21 is beyond the scope of this project. For the current debate on the Suffering Servant’s significance for Early Christianity see W. H. Bellinger, Jr., and W. R. Farmer, eds., Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998); B. Janowksi and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschicte (Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1996); Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1957), 51–82; Otfried Hofius, “Erwagungen zur Gestalt und Herkunft des paulinischen Versohnungsgedankens,” in Paulusstudien (WUNT 51: Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1989), 1–14; also the insightful reflections of Childs on the ontological relationship between the Suffering Servant and the NT (Childs, Isaiah, 420–23).
46. A similar approach—e.g., the notice of overlap between the Servant of Isa 40–55 and 2 Cor 5:14–21 with a focus on dieSache and not derBegriffe—has been given by Hofius, “Erwagungen,” 1–14. He does not, however, make explicit use of the Isaianic quotation in 6:2. The preceding observation by Hofius, Beale, and Webb—with their own particular readings of Isaiah—makes the following statement by McLean more astounding: “Moreover, Paul displays no interest in the Soteriology of the Ebed Yahweh: in all of his letters, there is not a single quotation or clear allusion to any verse of the fourth Servant Song concerning atonement” (Bradley Halstead McLean, “Christ as a Pharmakos in Pauline Soteriology” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991 [SBLSP 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991], 187). See also Otto Betz, ‘Jesus and Isaiah 53, ” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant, 77; and “Fleischliche undgeist-liche Christuserkenntnis nach 2. Korinther 5, 16, ” in Jesus, derHerr derKirche (WUNT 52; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990), 114–28.
47. On narrative identity—a focusing on a character’s identity on the basis of their action—see Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 6–9; Hans Frei, The Identity of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975); Paul Ricouer Oneself as Another (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Ronald F Thiemann, Revelation and Theology: The Gospel as Narrated Promise (NotreDame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985), chs. 6–7.
48. “Raised” and “exalted” language is applied exclusively to Yahweh in Isaiah (cf 6:1). See Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2003), 381–89.
49. Bauckham, God Crucified, 51. Wilcox and Paton-Williams observe, Throughout Isa. 1–66, the adjectives ‘exalted,’ ‘lifted up’ and ‘very high’ are virtually technical terms, applied almost exclusively to Yahweh.” Wilcox and Paton-Williams tread lightly on this observation, “The implication is not necessarily that the servant is Yahweh, or even divine; but there is an implication here that the servant’s work is Yahweh’s work, and the language used to make the point is daring to say the least” (Wilcox and Paton-Williams, “Servant Songs,” 95).
50. Robert Jenson has given keen theological insight into Isa 49 from a Trinitarian perspective. “So much at least is clear: whatever may have been in the mind or minds of the author or authors of this text. .. followers of the risen Jesus were only conforming to the actual statement of the text when they took it as applicable to their Lord. For the text presents an historically unfilled template, indeed a template unfulfillable by anyone who lives only within the parameters of this age, of history as it now proceeds. To fit that template to someone is to say that this particular Israelite brings Israel back to the Lord and that just so this person is Israel thus brought back, to take her final mission to the nations” (Robert Jenson, “The Bible and the Trinity,” ProEccl 11, no. 3 [2002]: 334-35).
51. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 29.
52. On taking the copulative and the imperfect as periphrastic in 2 Cor 5:19, see Stanley Porter, “Reconciliation and 2 Cor 5, 18–21, ” in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bierienger; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 695–700. This understanding of the unique role and identity of the Servant of Isa 40–55 presses forward Lambrecht’s article on the basis of theological issues not attended to in his work.
53. Again see works by Childs cited in n. 37 above. T he importance of the larger narrative of Isa 40–55 (66) for early Christians is expressed by Bauckham, “For the early Christians, these chapters of Isaiah, above all else, were the God given account of the significance of the events of eschatological salvation which they witnessed and in which they were involved” (God Crucified, 47). J. Ross Wagner rightly states that for Paul, Isaiah was a viva voce (Wagner, “The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant, 209).
54. See n. 1 above.
55. Interestingly enough, Beale affirms the presence of the Servant in 2 Cor 5: 18–21 (Beale, “Old Testament Background,” 559).
56. See Bauckham, God Crucified, andJenson, ‘Bible and Trinity.
57. It is at this point that I believe Beale’s sensibilities are correct, that is, Paul may understand himself to be carrying on the work of the Servant (Beale, “Old Testament Background,” 564). Again, however, the subordinate role Paul takes under Christ must be emphasized, as pointed out in 2 Cor 4:8–12. Also, the close identification Paul makes between Christ and the Servant makes Beale’s particular identification of Paul as the Servant more unlikely That Paul could have applied the Servant prophecy to himself as one who carried on the mission of Jesus is a possibility On the other hand, textually there is no support for this claim and at times the language becomes confusing See John Howard Schu¨tz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (SNTSMS 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 71–72.I do believe there is another category of identification within the redemptive drama of Isa 40–66 in which Paul would have placed himself, namely, the subsequent servants of the Servant found in the literary movement in Isa 53–66. See Mark Gignilliat, ‘A Servant Follower of the Servant: Paul’s Eschatological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10, ” HBT26 (2004): 98-124; Wagner, “Heralds of Isaiah,” 222.