Late Pre-Exilic and Exilic Prophecy

Isaiah 40-55

Canonical and Historical Context: Who’s on Stage?

As noted in the introduction to the book of Isaiah above, it contains three distinct sections, each addressed to a different audience in a different location—over the span of roughly 230 years. When we flip the page from Isaiah 39 to Isaiah 40, we leapfrog some 150 years: from the late-8th century when Isaiah predicted the Babylonian exile (Isa 39:5–8) to the mid-6th century when the exiles hear words of “comfort” that their “term” in exile is about to come to an end (Isa 40:1–2). Isaiah 40–55 is addressed to a later generation living in Babylon. Yahweh had given Israel three gifts that marked them as the people of God. Through the land God gave his people a home and blessed them. Through the temple he mediated his presence. Through the king he established his righteous kingdom. But Babylon's sacking of Jerusalem brought an end to these means of grace.

(Note: the video below includes music; mute your device if desired)

The only sacrament remaining after the exile was “the word of our God,” which is foregrounded in the opening and closing chapters (Isa 40:8; 55:10–11) God’s “word,” however, does not denote Mosaic Torah or the Scriptures, but the prophetic word that foretold the exile and now promises restoration back home. Once we flip the page to Isaiah 56, we leapfrog again to the late 6th century when the second temple in Jerusalem had been completed.

Info Box 18.: The Authorship of Isaiah 40–55

While it is clear that three generations are reflected in the book of Isaiah, scholars have debated whether we should imagine one, two, or three different prophets, which they call (First) Isaiah, (Second or) Deutero-Isaiah, (Third or) Trito-Isaiah. Which view is most consistent with the phenomenon of prophecy exhibited in the Bible? As already noted, the book of Isaiah uniquely addresses at least three different generations over 230 years. Although all the biblical Prophets may contain messages that impinge on later generations, they maintain their “predictive” perspective, that is, the prophet retains his present standpoint in history as he foretells future consequences. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel predict both the Babylonian exile and the later return home, but both events are presented as future.

In Isaiah 40–55, however, the prophet speaks of Jerusalem’s destruction as past (Isa 44:26; 52:9) and the departure from Babylon as imminent (Isa 48:20; 52:11). The prophet’s historical standpoint between the past and the future is made clear by phrases that he uniquely uses: “former things” and “new things.”

See, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth,
I tell you of them (Isa 42:9, NRSV).

The former things I declared long ago,
they went out from my mouth and I made them known;
then suddenly I did them and they came to pass.
You have heard; now see all this;
and will you not declare it?
From this time forward I make you hear new things,
hidden things that you have not known.

They are created now, not long ago;
before today you have never heard of them,
so that you could not say, “I already knew them” (Isa 48:3, 6–7, NRSV).

As “the former things” are described as “suddenly brought to pass” within living memory of this generation, they likely refer to the fulfillment of the pre-exilic prophecies about Jerusalem’s destruction and the people’s exile. He is explicit that these “new things” were previously unknown to his audience and that this exilic prophet is the first to make them known. In another passage he identifies the new event:

Thus says the Lord,
who makes a way in the sea,
a path in the mighty waters,
who brings out chariot and horse,
army and warrior;
they lie down, they cannot rise,
they are extinguished, quenched like a wick:
Do not remember the former things,
or consider the things of old.
I am about to do a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert (Isa 43:16–19, NRSV).

This oracle alludes to the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt through “the sea,” only to turn the audience’s attention to a future exodus through “the wilderness,” that is, from Babylon back to the promised land. Since the beginnings of this event should be perceptible to the audience, this migration should take place within their lifetime. This promise became a reality in 538 BCE when Cyrus king of Persia issued his decree allowing deported populations to return to their homelands.

In other oracles that point to the pivotal moment between “the former things” and “the things to come” (Isa 41:22; 45:11), it becomes clear that Cyrus will precipitate these “things to come.” This conqueror (Isa 41:25) “will build my city and my exiles he shall set free” (Isa 43:13). Yahweh presents Cyrus as his chief piece of evidence that he alone among the so-called gods has orchestrated Cyrus’s rise to power. So plainly, Cyrus must have been a contemporary known not only to the prophet, but also to his audience.

Elsewhere the prophet responds to the laments of the Babylonian exiles as a contemporary (Isa 40:27; 49:14). He engages his audience with rhetorical questions as a form of debate (scholars call these “disputations,” Isa 40:12–31; 42:18–25).

As both prophet and audience reside in exile in Babylon, as Cyrus is a known historical figure, and as his decree of liberation lies within their lifetime, we should probably date Isaiah 40–55 between 550 BCE, when Cyrus became known by his conquest of Media, and 539 BCE, when he conquered Babylon. (The issue of predictive prophecy is not the decisive criterion for deciding whether or not Isaiah of Jerusalem composed Isaiah 40–55 in the late eighth century BCE. A prophecy that the invading conqueror Cyrus the Great would prove to be a liberator for the Judahites would have been equally predictive and surprising for an exilic audience in 550 BCE.)

Another indication that this unnamed prophet is not to be identified with Isaiah lies in their diverging use of traditions, such as their perspectives on Zion and David, the two principal traditions found in Isaiah 1–39. Key to Isaiah’s future hope is God’s agent, the Davidic “messiah,” who will establish justice and righteousness (Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–6). But in Isaiah 40–55, the prerogatives of David are “democratized,” that is, made available to the all the exiles (Isa 55:3–5). Most striking, however, is that Yahweh identifies Cyrus as “my shepherd” and “anointed/messiah” (Isa 44:28–45:1)—epithets that should belong to the Davidic line (2 Sam 5:2–3; 7:8; Ps 72:70–72; and 1 Sam 16:12–13; 2 Sam 12:7; 23:1; Pss 2:2; 18:50; 89:20; 132:10, 17). Another agent of salvation in Isaiah 40–55 is the Servant, who “will bring forth justice for the nations” (Isa 42:1) and suffer dearly to accomplish this (the so-called Servant Songs are listed and discussed below). Ultimately, however, it is Yahweh who “reigns” in these events (Isa 52:7), not a human agent.

In Isaiah 1–39 “Zion” denotes the sacred mountain and city, where he dwells (Isa 2:3; 8:18; 18:7) and which he defends as inviolable against foreign attackers (Isa 10:24; 14:32; 31:4; 33:5–6, 20; 37:33–35). But in Isaiah 40–55 physical Zion/Jerusalem lies in ruins. Instead, the city of Zion/Jerusalem becomes a metaphor for an estranged wife (Isa 50:1; 54:4–8) or for a mother bereft of her children (Isa 49:20–23; 54:1–3).

The exodus tradition is notably absent in Isaiah 1–39 (see §17.3.7), but is pivotal in Isaiah 40–55. As Yahweh had liberated the Hebrew slaves Egypt, so he will now liberate the Judahites exiles from Babylon (Isa 43:16–21; 48:20–21; 52:11–12).

Most significantly, the theological perspective develops considerably in Isaiah 40–55. In the first 39 chapters Yahweh is clearly sovereign over the nations (see esp. the oracles against the nations). But in Isaiah 40–55 we hear repeatedly the first explicit claims of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible: Yahweh alone is God. Isaiah 40–55 is supremely a theological vision, focusing on God and his people, with little attention to the institutions of the king and the temple.

A consequence of this theological development is a more positive view of the nations. Following the Cyrus Oracle (Isa 44:24–45:7), where Yahweh claims, “apart from me there is no God,” he offers this “altar call,” so to speak, to all peoples:

“Turn to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth,
for I am God, and there is no other” (Isa 45:22).

Because Yahweh alone is God, the nations no longer have their own patron deities, so Yahweh must now become their deity. Yahweh assures the Israelites regarding the nations,

“To you they will pray,
‘Surely God is with you,
and there is none yet besides God’” (Isa 45:14).

The nations appear in their most positive light in the Servant Songs, where the Servant appears as “a light for the nations” (Isa 42:6; 49:6).

The differing literary styles found in Isaiah 1–39 and 40–55 also suggest that we are reading two different authors. One example lies in Deutero Isaiah’s fondness for introducing pronouncements by identifying Yahweh with a series of descriptors (usually relative clauses in English translations, but participial clauses in Hebrew):

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by myself spread out the earth (Isa 44:24, NRSV, italics mark the Hebrew participles)

These participial descriptors continue throughout Isaiah 44:24–28 (see also Isa 42:5; 43:1; 44:2; 45:18–19; 48:17). Further examples of Deutero Isaiah’s distinctive vocabulary and phrasing can be found in S.R. Driver’s An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (pp. 238–242).

Outline and Key Passages

[This section is under revision and will be added when complete.]

Situation and Message: What’s at Stake?
Comfort (Isaiah 40)

Discussion Box 18.1 What words would you have for the exiles?

In Old Testament studies the term “exile” can simply be a label we used to designate a historical period. But if we wish to be sympathetic readers we must try to imagine the Israelites’ situation of being forced to abandon their homes in the promised land and settle in the land of their conquerors. What would become of their faith, knowing Yahweh’s temple had been leveled and his appointed king imprisoned? The logic of their wider Semitic culture might seem compelling: Yahweh had been overcome by Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon. Or, he simply didn’t care anymore. Despair over these losses and intimidation by the Babylonian Empire may have been overwhelming.
• Why should they not simply assimilate into the victorious culture of Babylon? Why would they remain loyal to Yahweh?
• What words of hope can you imagine offering in this crisis?
• What groups in today’s world have experienced similar displacement?
• What experiences in your own life resonate with the exiles? How could Deutero-Isaiah’s message be an encouragement to you?

Discussion Box 18.2 What would you expect Yahweh to say to his people?

To appreciate the surprise of a biblical text it can be helpful for the reader to construct a “countertext,” which expresses what one might have expected the speaker/writer to say.
• Given Yahweh’s threats elsewhere in the OT, what might you expect Yahweh to say through this prophet? Consider this question especially in light of the curses in Deuteronomy 28, which climax in exile.

► The exiles are to comfort Jerusalem by preparing Yahweh's processional highway to Jerusalem.

Isaiah 40 is one of the most remarkable passages in all of Scripture. To “comfort” his people Yahweh engages them in a “disputation,” whereby we gain insight into their mood of despair:

Why do you say, Jacob, and speak, Israel,
‘my way is hidden from Yahweh,
and from my God my case passes by’? (Isa 40:27).

If we are correct in dating Isaiah 40–55 to around 550 BCE, the prophet is likely addressing the second-generation Judahites who were born in Babylonian exile. As this generation was not itself culpable for the judgment of 587 BCE, they believed their misfortune in exile was an injustice.

“Comfort [pl], comfort, O my people,
says your God.
“Speak to the heart of Jerusalem,
and call out to her,
that her term of service is fulfilled,
that the punishment for her iniquity is accepted,
that she has received from Yahweh’s hand
(the) double for all her sins” (Isa 40:1–2).

A close reading of the Hebrew text suggests that God commands his people in Babylonian exile to “comfort” the city of Jerusalem, which in turn is to pass the good news on to the cities of Judah about Yahweh’s advent (Isa 40:9). They have arrived at a pivotal moment in their history: the pre-exilic prophecies of doom are fulfilled and they are now to “prepare” for something new.

A voice is calling,
“In the wilderness clear Yahweh’s way,
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed (Isa 40:3, 5).

This decree is especially meaningful given its setting in Babylon, where impressive processional highways were cleared for a parade of the gods, most notably Marduk, into their temples. Although the Judahite exiles were likely intimidated by the architecture of Babylon, Yahweh’s impressive highway will journey through the wilderness, as his temple will reside in Jerusalem. Yahweh’s presence will not be “seen” as a cult statue, but by some manifestation of his “glory.” Preceding this procession is a herald running with the “good news”: “Behold your God!” He “comes with strength” as a warrior bringing his spoils of war and then “like a shepherd he tends his flock” (Isa 40:9–11)—images that bring together into a single portrait the contrasting attributes of power and care.

While the loss of possessions and homeland was no doubt devastating to the exiles, nothing threatened their inner sense of well-being and identity like their shaken faith in Yahweh. This is the main topic of Deutero-Isaiah’s opening chapter. In a “disputation” Yahweh challenges his audience with a series of rhetorical questions that highlight his majesty (Isa 40:12–31). This portrait is based on the old “God of the skies” tradition, but it has been amped up considerably. Yahweh is indeed king, but he is incomparable and without a royal council. He commands not only the skies and clouds, but also the starry host. But most of all, the nations pale to insignificance—a point especially relevant for the speech’s Babylonian setting. It must have seemed ironic to the exiles that, while their social identity was defined by foreign subjugation, the theology of their God rises to supreme heights. Instead of becoming captive to Babylonian theology, Yahweh emerges as the one and only God. The ANE pantheon of gods is emptied, and only Yahweh remains. Monotheism eclipses polytheism. There is a final twist in this oracle: he gives strength, not to vigorous warriors, but to the despairing (exiles) who wait for and put their hope in him.

God’s Plan and Agent (Cyrus)

The Cyrus Oracle (Isa 44:24–45:7) is a centerpiece of Isaiah 40–55. To understand its logic we will need to bring to the foreground some of the operating assumptions of ANE culture. Given the overwhelming power that the Neo-Babylonian Empire embodied, what could possibly give hope to the Judahite exiles? To the east of Babylon, Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, conquered the neighboring kingdom of Media in 550 BCE (both in modern-day Iran). As the Persian conqueror heads westward to Babylon, the Israelites may have feared becoming collateral damage in the collision of empires, but Yahweh here announces the surprise that he, in fact, is the engineer of these developments. But his principal revelation is not about Cyrus or the fate of the exiles, but about himself.

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, …
I am the Lord, who made all things, …
who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be inhabited,”
and of the cities of Judah, “They shall be rebuilt, …
who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,
and he shall carry out all my purpose”;
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid” (Isa 44:24–28, NRSV).

The main clause of these five verses is simply, “I am Yahweh.” The remainder is simply a series of subordinate clauses identifying who this Yahweh is. This oracle is first a statement of theology and secondarily a prediction about Cyrus, the return of the exiles to Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the temple.

In a remarkable departure from tradition, Yahweh confers upon Cyrus the titles “my shepherd” (Isa 44: 28) and “anointed/messiah” (Isa 45:1)—epithets that belong to the Davidic line. The hope of returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple was clearly good news to Deutero-Isaiah’s exilic audience, but they evidently regarded Yahweh’s choice of agent as highly problematic and even offensive. In the following oracle Yahweh engages them in a disputation, challenging them, “Does the clay say to its potter, ‘What are you making?’” (Isa 45:9–13). Instead, Yahweh asserts that his actions are “right” and that he is under no obligation to Cyrus, the agent he chooses (Isa 45:13).

Monotheism

Cyrus Oracle. Within the Semitic culture, of which Israel was a part, the default theological explanation for the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem was that Yahweh was overcome by the gods of Babylon. To counter this reasoning Yahweh takes the gods to court in a series of “trial speeches.”

From the time of Israel’s settlement in Canaan until the mid-eighth century BCE, the Israelites’ world extended only as far as the neighboring kingdoms and their gods (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:33). Thereafter, the empires forced themselves upon the Israelites’ world view: first the Assyrians and then the Neo-Babylonians. Within Semitic culture this would mean that the head of the pantheon of gods was first Asshur and then Marduk. But in this oracle Yahweh now commands Cyrus the Great, the soon-to-be conqueror of Babylon, to do his bidding unwittingly for Israel’s sake.

Thus Yahweh is said to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped …
For the sake of my servant Jacob,
and Israel my chosen,
I have called you by your name,
I name you, though you do not know me (Isa 45:1, 4).

This claim implicitly locates Yahweh as the Sovereign, not only over nations and empires but also over their patron gods.

I am Yahweh and there is none besides,
except me there is no God.
I embrace you, though you do not know me,
so they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west,
that there is none apart from me.
I am Yahweh, and there is none besides (Isa 45:5–6).

Yahweh’s command of Cyrus provides implicit evidence that he alone is God.

Now we can appreciate the significance of claims made at the beginning of the Cyrus Oracle:

I am Yahweh,
… who … makes diviners look foolish …,
who establishes the word of his servants (Isa 44:25–26).

Evidently Babylon’s diviners did not foresee Cyrus’ coming. Only Yahweh has a proven track record of fulfilling the oracles of his prophets. A god is only as good as his word. Yahweh, therefore, becomes the de facto God.

Trial Speeches against the Nations and their gods take this judgment to the next level. A prevailing assumption in ANE culture (but certainly not unique to them) is that the victor on the battlefield indicates which army has the superior god. Earthly politics mirrored heavenly realities. But the genius of this prominent speech form in Isaiah 40–55 is to shift the arena of decision from the battlefield to the law court.

In this imagined law court Yahweh, as prosecutor, summons the nations and their gods, as the defendants (Isa 41:21–29). This speech form has powerful rhetorical effect because the listeners/readers are the implicit judge of Yahweh’s case. At issue is “that we may know that you are gods.” They are challenged to bring forth evidence by explaining the past (“the former things”) and its eventual “outcome” and also by declaring the future (“the things to come”). A god should be able to make sense of the past and predict the future. To appreciate the rhetorical effect we must imagine a hiatus of silence between verses 23 and 24, wherein the gods are given the opportunity to speak, but nothing is heard (explicitly stated later, “there is none … who returns a word”). As prosecutor, Yahweh then gives his preliminary conclusion:

Behold, you are nothing,
and your work less than nothing;
one who chooses you is an abomination (Isa 41:24).

Yahweh then proceeds to present his own case and evidence. The one that Yahweh has “stirred up,” though not named here, is Cyrus the Great, who is characterized in the same manner as in the Cyrus Oracle (cf. Isa 41:25 and 45:1–3). Yahweh alone declared in advance the rise of Cyrus as conqueror; none of these so-called gods foretold it. As a result, he reiterates his conclusion: “Behold, they are all nothing.” This judgment reflects functional monotheism, which operates well within a Semitic cultural context, which thinks in terms of function, rather than being (ontology) or metaphysics (the preference of Greco-Roman and Western thinking). As the gods say nothing and do nothing, they are nothing.

For the first time in the unfolding of the history of Israel’s religion and the literature of the Hebrew Bible we hear an explicit claim of monotheism, the belief in one God. Previously Yahweh was regarded as the patron God of Israel, while other peoples had their own patron gods (e.g., 1 Sam 26:19-20; Judg 11:24; Josh 24:15; Num 21:29; Mic 4:5), and as incomparable among other gods/divine beings (e.g., Exod 15:11; Deut 4:7). Now Yahweh is the summation of “deity” (elohim) and the only being fit for worship.

In the final trial speech against the nations, which follows the decisive Cyrus Oracle (Isa 45:20–25), Yahweh reiterates his monotheistic claim and offers the nations an “altar call,” as it were:

Turn to me, and be saved,
all the ends of the earth,
for I am God and there is no other (Isa 45:22).

As Yahweh has just argued that he alone is God, then it follows that the so-called gods that the nations have worshiped do not exist. Therefore, if they are to have a god and “be saved,” then they must turn to Yahweh.

Hope

Salvation Oracles. To encourage the exiles Yahweh speaks through “salvation oracles” (Isa 41:8–13, 14–16; 43:1–7; 44:1–5), whose core has a standard literary form.

Fear not, for I am with you;
don’t be frightened, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you, indeed I will help you,
indeed I will support you with my righteous right hand (Isa 41:10).

In these oracles he speaks to his people more personally in an individualized form (see esp. Isa 43:1–2).

Proclamations of Salvation are another speech form conveying hope (Isa 49:14–26; 51:9–52:6). They echo the exiles’ lament, either explicitly or implicitly, which Yahweh answers with a promise of salvation, thus demonstrating that he is a responsive deity. (As noted above, this dialogic form indicates the prophet was a contemporary of the exiles.)

But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me,
my Lord has forgotten me.”
Can a woman forget her nursing child,
or show no compassion for the child of her womb?
Even these may forget,
yet I will not forget you (Isa 49:14–15, NRSV).

Yahweh shows sympathy for the city of Zion and its exiled inhabitants by likening their pain to that of a mother bereft of her children and their joy to the surprise of their reunion (Isa 49:20–23). Elsewhere Zion is likened to a once barren woman who will need to enlarge her tent to accommodate all her children, thus echoing the promise made to Sarah in Genesis (Isa 54:1–3). In this same passage she is likened to a wife who has been widowed or divorced, only to be reconciled to her husband, Yahweh (Isa 54:4–8; cf. Isa 50:1).

Another proclamation of salvation echoes the exodus tradition (Isa 43:16-21). Ironically it first calls to mind the exodus from Egypt as “a way in the sea” where “chariot and horse” lie extinguished, only to command the exiles to forget the past because “behold, I am about to do a new thing…. I will set a way in the wilderness.” The exiles eventual departure from Babylon is likened to a second exodus. The prophet’s audience may well have considered his promises of hope and deliverance as mere idealism, but he here provides a historical precedent when situation of the people of God was even worse. Then they were slaves, not simply exiles. This passage illustrates how the people of God are to regard their past and their traditions. While traditions may demonstrate how Yahweh acts on his people’s behalf, they are not to become nostalgic for “the good ol’ days.”

In later prophecies, presumably after Cyrus’s Decree, the prophet explicitly commands the exiles to depart Babylon. In each case he likens their departure for the promised land to the exodus journey of their ancestors from Egypt through the wilderness (Isa 48:20–21; 52:11–12; cf. 49:9–10).

Hymnic Praise punctuates Isaiah 40–55 in a way that invites the people of God to respond to these prophecies by reviving their worship expressed in psalms, even while yet in Babylonian exile (Isa 42:10–13; 44:23; 49:13).

Isaiah 55 rounds off Isaiah 40–55 with an invitation to Yahweh’s rich banquet at which he will “cut an everlasting covenant” and transfer “the mercies of David” to the people of Zion (Isa 55:1–5). To the Judahite captives in Babylon the message of Isaiah 40–55 must have seemed too good to be true, so Yahweh assures them that his “thoughts” and “ways” are higher than theirs and that his prophetic “word” will indeed accomplish his plans for salvation (Isa 55:8–11; cf. 40:8).

God’s Agent (Servant)

Embedded within Isaiah 40–55 is the portrayal of another agent of salvation, the “servant.” Scholars have identified four “Servant Songs,” the first three of which may have later additions (Isa 42:1–4 + 5–9; 49:1–6 + 7–12; 50:4-9 + 10–11; 52:13–53:12). Some commentators believe they were always included within the literary flow of Isaiah 40–55. Others believe they were originally composed separately and then deliberately inserted at key locations. Because they share distinctive motifs that are developed within the songs, the latter explanation seems more likely.

The servant’s first introduction, “Behold my servant …” (Isa 42:1), begs the question, who is this servant? But before we address the issue of his identity, we must first clarify the role that the servant plays.

The first three songs hint of prophetic motifs: “I have put my spirit upon him” (Isa 42:1). Like Jeremiah (Jer 1:5, 9), “Yahweh called me from the womb,” “made my mouth like a sharp sword” (Isa 49:1–2), and “has given me the tongue of those who are taught” (Isa 50:4).

All four songs indicate that his divine appointment is not obvious to his audience, who thus misinterprets and opposes him. But he chooses to persevere. And ultimately Yahweh will vindicate him and reveal his true identity and mission to those who believe. As the four songs progress, the servant and his mission are concealed, his audience opposes and persecutes him, but he perseveres and God vindicates him. Though his mouth is likened to a “sword” and “arrow,” “in the shadow of his hand he concealed me …; in his quiver he hid me” (Isa 49:2). He shuns any PR campaign: “he will not cry aloud, nor lift his voice; he will not make it heard in the street” (Isa 42:2). In fact, he submits himself to public abuse and humiliation (Isa 50:6). As a result, he laments, “but I said, ‘for nothing I have labored; for emptiness and futility I have spent my strength,’” but he also believes “my cause is with Yahweh and by outcome with my God” (Isa 49:4). Yet he perseveres in spite of opposition (Isa 42:4) with God’s “help” and the  hope of God’s legal “vindication” (Isa 50:7–9).

The second song signals a new development: in response to the servant’s perseverance under pressure, Yahweh expands the scope of his mission: from “bringing Israel back” to becoming “a light for the nations” (Isa 49:5–6, which is a phrase that also appears in the addition to the first Servant Song in Isa 42:6). Ironically, instead of offering him relief, Yahweh enlarges the servant’s challenge! The introductory servant song, however, presents this universal mission from the outset: “he will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isa 42:1).

These motifs of concealment, opposition, perseverance, and vindication climax in the fourth Song (Isa 52:13–53:12). Although a preceding oracle promises that Yahweh will “bare his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations” (Isa 52:10), it becomes apparent that “the arm of Yahweh” must be “revealed” (Isa 53:1). What may sound like a clear, public manifestation of God’s power will not be obvious to all.

The key feature of this song is how it is peppered with the pronouns “my,” “he,” “we,” and they.” The poem seems intentionally to avoid any specification of their identities. Yahweh is clear in the opening and closing verses that “he” is “my servant,” whom “I” will reward (Isa 52:13; 53:11–12). “We,” however, misjudged him: we were not attracted to him and regarded his “pains” as afflictions from God (Isa 53:2–4). In this respect, their misinterpretation followed typical ANE thinking, where misfortune was a sign of the gods’ displeasure. But in stark reversal to every cultural expectation, this servant suffers vicariously as a substitute on our behalf (Isa 53:4–6). He is tried, but offers no defense—instead “exposing his soul to death”—while “they” try him unfairly and execute him (Isa 53:7–9, 12). Because of his suffering, “the many” will be “made righteous” and Yahweh will in turn vindicate him (Isa 53:10–12). The shocking realization of what this strangely concealed work actually means is articulated ironically at the outset of the poem (Isa 52:13–15). The astonishment at the servant’s exaltation matches the horror at his suffering.

Now that we have surveyed the four Songs and the role that the servant plays, we are in a better position to hypothesize on his identity. Out of respect for the text, we must observe that the Songs nowhere explicitly identify him; in fact, they seem to avoid his identification intentionally and simply present a model figure.

A prophetic figure is a likely candidate, especially one modeled after Moses and Jeremiah, both of whom suffered as God’s servants. One might think particularly of the prophet Deutero-Isaiah himself, though the Songs are not presented autobiographically. And the person of Deutero-Isaiah himself is nowhere foregrounded elsewhere in Isaiah 40–55, where the message of the oracles themselves overshadows their messenger.

Outside the Songs, the title “servant” is explicitly applied to Israel, who is likewise “chosen” and “upheld” (Isa 41:8–10; 42:19; 43:10; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20). While servant Israel may act as “witnesses” on Yahweh’s behalf in a trial speech (Isa 43:10–12), they are in each of these passages the object of God’s help, not an agent bringing justice and salvation. In some contexts they are characterized as “deaf” and “blind” (Isa 42:19) and as transgressors in need of redemption (Isa 44:21–22). Within the Songs, the servant appears to be explicitly identified as “Israel,” but his function is explicitly “to bring Jacob/Israel back” to Yahweh (Isa 49:3–6).

This observation may imply that a segment of Israel is to be identified with this servant. As noted above, the imperative that opens Isaiah 40–55 appears to instruct the exiles in Babylon to “comfort” the city of Jerusalem (Isa 40:1–2). If so, the exiles suffering in Babylon might fill the role of the servant who restores Israel and Jerusalem back to Yahweh.

Although the title “servant” is not applied explicitly to Cyrus the Great, he does perform some of the servant’s functions, especially concerning Israel’s restoration. But his modus operandi, namely “trampling on rulers like they were clay,” is presented in close juxtaposition to the MO of the servant, who “does not raise his voice in the street” or “break a bruised reed” (cf. Isa 41:25 and 42:2–3). And there is no indication that Cyrus suffers.

For Christians it is almost impossible to read these Songs without thinking of Jesus in the Gospels. While some may regard them as outright predictions of Jesus’s life, it seems more consistent with patterns found elsewhere in the Bible that the portrait is first intended for a contemporary agent and then later finds a greater fulfillment in the life of Jesus in the New Testament. Hence, the portrayal of the servant may act as a model for the Israelite exiles to embody while living under Babylonian and Persian domination. But then Jesus’s Passion may have suggested an entirely new reading of these ancient Songs.

Info Box : Echoes of the Servant Songs in the New Testament

Mark 1:11 → Ps 2:7; Isa 42:1
At Jesus’ baptism God identifies him as both Davidic messiah and Suffering Servant

Matt 8:17 → Isa 53:4
Jesus is identified as the Servant, but the sicknesses that the Servant bore in his sacrificial death are applied to Jesus’ healing ministry.

Matt 12:18–21 → Isa 42:1-4
The Servant citation supports the “messianic secret” motif of Jesus’ mission.

John 12:37–38 → Isa 53:1
This prooftext explains the crowd’s disbelief in God’s message.

Luke 22:37 → Isa 53:12
At the Last Supper Jesus warns his disciples that he will fulfill the role of the Servant, not that of a Davidic king.

Acts 8:32–33 → Isa 53:7–8
When Philip answers the question of the Ethiopian eunuch, he provides the most explicit identification of Jesus as the Servant.

Acts 13:47 → Isa 49:6
Paul applies the Servant’s mission as “a light to the Gentiles” to his Gentile mission.

Rom 8:33–34 → Isa 50:8–9
Paul identifies the Servant with the church.

1 Pet 2:22–25 → Isa 53:5–7, 9
Jesus as the Servant serves as a model for the church’s response to persecution.

Canonical and Theological Contribution

[This section is under revision and will be added when complete.]