The Servant in Isaiah

Isaiah 53 is the most well known passage about the “suffering servant,” and we often read it as if Jesus’ name is pretty much written in the original text. With a wider perspective of the book as a whole, we can gain appreciation for not only the context of Isaiah but also the overarching flow of thought for this “servant” theme.

There are actually four “Servant Songs” in Isaiah: 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–11; 52:13—53:12. Each one does seem to reference events and characteristics that describe the person and work of Jesus. We can at least see that singular pronouns are used. This would seem to suggest than an individual is in view. Yet, it may not be as clean cut as this.

What makes things fuzzy is that Isaiah initially identifies the nation of Israel as God’s servant (41:8; 44:1–2). God chose then to serve as His witness (43:10) and as a light to the Gentiles. Israel continuously failed as this mission due to idolatry and her own need for forgiveness (42:19; 44:21–22). 

But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, descendant of Abraham My friend, You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from its remotest parts and said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.’” —Isaiah 41:8-9

Isaiah 49:5-6, though, mention the “servant” as clearly being distinct from Israel, whose mission is to bring Israel back to fellowship with YHWH.

And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him…He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’”

For a helpful list of all mentions of the servant in Isaiah, see http://www.wordexplain.com/IsaiahServant.html.

It appears we cannot make blanket statements about the referent of the servant being Isaiah, a prophet, an unnamed individual from the 8th century BC, Israel as a nation, or the future Messiah in every case. It appears each passage must be taken on its own, but at the same time understood in light of the book as a whole.

On my “Favorite Resources” page, there’s a book called The NT Use of the OT by Carson and Beale. This is a fantastic “commentary” not only on how a NT passage interprets and “uses” an OT passage, but the trajectory of an OT passage through its original context and Jewish understandings in their literature. For Isaiah 52-53 there are dozens of entries. On page 32, here’s one simple explanation. “The most balanced conclusion seems to be that although there is no unambiguous pre-Christian evidence for a messianic perspective on the Servant Songs, and especially for a suffering messiah, ‘there is good reason to think that some initial steps had been taken in that direction’ (Page 1985: 493).’” The point being that Jewish rabbis and the literature gives mixed reviews of the passage in question. Sometimes it is clearly a messianic interpretation; other times it focuses solely on Israel as the servant. It is difficult to pinpoint date, location, and influence on these writings.

My conclusion is similar to the author of that specific article. The purpose of these “Servant Songs” then could be an example of corporate solidarity. The future Messiah will represent the nation and complete the intended mission where the nation could not. He will faithfully complete the task where they failed. He will suffer so they can be free. And He will be exalted so that the entire nation can be vindicated. 

This only makes sense in light of the covenant, disobedience, exile, New Covenant, Jew/Gentile relationships, etc. Plucking Isaiah 53 out from its 66 surrounding chapters and the entire OT canon to find substitutionary atonement seems premature. We have to work harder to allow the narrative to play out. We get the same, or at least similar, theological conclusions. But there’s a much more solid foundation biblically and logically. 

(Per my conclusion above, I do not think it is solely Israel, at least not looking back. We have the benefit of being able to do that. The difficulty is seeing these passages in their original context. If interested, see this article for one [not particularly “the”] Jewish perspective on how Isaiah 53 refers to Israel as the nation and not the Messiah.

American Christianity and the Individualized Gospel

 [Queue overused joke/phenomenon of being scared or disinterested in talking to our neighbors vs. “the good ol’ days when everyone knew and talked to everyone else”]

Huge caveat here that this post is specifically focused on churches in the US. Why? Because that’s what I’ve experienced. Yes, I have travelled around the world but not extensively, and certainly not enough to speak about church elsewhere. And even these general statements are broad brushstrokes to be sure. Different regions of the US (and local congregations) cannot be judged by what’s said here. 

I would think generally, though, that the culture of the US is becoming more individualized. Sure, we come together for parties or sporting events or graduations. But by and large, we like to keep to ourselves, our families, and our immediate circles. The pandemic certainly didn’t help this. We were shoved into isolation for large portions of time, and we are still seeing side affects of this, regardless of age, occupation, gender, personality, and other background traits.

Individualism and commercialism go hand in hand. What’s in it for me? How does x or y benefit me? Commercials scream at us about how this product will make our life better. Politicians literally scream at us about how they will improve our daily living. We save for retirement to make future years more comfortable than they would be otherwise. 

Asking for help is usually a last resort. Admitting a failure or mistake is gut wrenching—mostly because culture or community or even friends/family may even completely abandon us. We are forced often to depend on ourselves.

Again, I can’t speak of cultures globally, and I don’t want to stereotype too much, but I know at least ancient cultures were not this way. Commitment to family and community was much stronger. (Of course, there were exceptions). I believe and have researched/heard a bit from others/friends/scholars that Eastern cultures typically have a closer bond. 

Culture is one thing. The real issue is when the Lone Ranger mentality creeps into the church. If I think that I can follow Jesus all by lonesome, I’m severely mistaken. Granted, people are morons. They make mistakes. They lie, annoy, and refuse to listen. They get angry and prideful. And that’s just those who claim to know Jesus.

I have been in a local church since before I was born. I have seen the best and the worst of Christians—well, not the worst. But I am well aware of our greatest sins throughout history, and I am appalled. 

And when I enter conversation with those equally disgusted, I concede much of our errors, and my errors. 

But this is not that time. 

This is a call to remember that the church is the bride of Christ. He loved/loves her. He died for her. And if anyone thinks they can love/follow Jesus and not the church, they don’t love Jesus.

Love is a weird word, though, because sometimes it can mean calling out our errors and flaws. Sometimes it can mean serving and being fully involved in ministry. Sometimes it can mean giving all we have to those in need. Sometimes it can mean cheering for others as they do what we are unable to do.

Here are some specific ways that this mindset of an “individualized gospel” can play out in the American church:

Attendance: This may seem too obvious, but if someone does not see himself/herself as integral to the body of Christ, he/she will not gather with other believers. We have seen this since the pandemic, and in many cases, that’s ok. I’m not arguing for putting people in danger. Personal health is an important factor, and everyone must make their own decisions. 

But as a chaplain I enter many homes where the recurring chorus is “We went to church up until the pandemic. Now it’s just harder to go.” And the patient may or may not have extended family nearby. But every time, my heart skips a beat, knowing there’s a whole community of people waiting with gross potato salad and stale rolls. A merry band of individuals to come pray, read books, sing songs, play Checkers, anything to make each day more memorable and bring joy. Could the local church reach out automatically and do all this? I suppose. But if someone stops coming for years, it’s awfully difficult to expect a church to keep up with illnesses or family history. At least inform them of the circumstances. 

Worship: This is no time to debate every lyric of Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation. If we put several hymns and modern CCM songs side by side, we would see strengths and weaknesses to each. Some of the same criticisms could be leveled against both. One of those is the “me-centered” ness that is usually ascribed to modern songs (and I would agree it’s more of an issue with newer songs). Salvation is about what Jesus has done for “me,” what “I” receive, “my” new life/rescue, etc. None of which is wrong, inaccurate. But we need a more balanced emphasis on two things: (1) God’s glory, which is the end of salvation and (2) a corporate view of salvation (see below)

Service/Missions: Maybe this doesn’t follow as much. But I wonder if it’s easier to give online or write a check than to give of time or energy due to an individualistic mindset. Would we rather give $100 than a week or two to serve? Or would we rather buy some groceries than go serve the poor in a low-income neighborhood or at the kitchen downtown? I don’t know. I haven’t surveyed anyone. Just thoughts.

Does it affect our theology?

Church language: How many times do we use the word “church” for its local vs. global use? Yes, the apostles wrote letters to local churches (perhaps to regions composed of local churches). Elders are appointed over local churches. Church membership is important on a local level; otherwise, the commands of accountability and authority are pretty moot. But I wonder if the 59 one another statements apply in a local or global context? Am I only supposed to forgive those in my local gathering? Definitely not. Am I only supposed to pray for those who come to the same building as me on Sunday? That’s silly.

We think of the global church once in a while, but a more consistent view would eliminate petty arguments. It would elevate the essentials within the church. We would be more unified. We would value diversity. We would focus on Jesus, because He unites all peoples in Him (Rev 7-8).

Atonement: I have been reviewing this major doctrine for a month or so, and I haven’t read any major books, yet. I like what I heard where the Bible doesn’t care about theories or view of “atonement.” It’s more like the death of Jesus is one of the most simple, yet complex events in history. The implications of it are drastic for all history. It’s mentioned throughout the NT, and nearly every song alludes to its effects. But the more I read the verses, I notice some repeated themes. Here are some of the major verses that mention substitution as we like to talk about Jesus’ death. 

Isaiah 53:1-12  Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.  (**Needs more notes later, but Isaiah has a couple passages on Israel as the “servant.” To apply the term to an individual here is possible. The NT certainly applies it to Jesus, but that’s looking back.)

2 Corinthians 5:21  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

Mark 10:45  For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Colossians 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Hebrews 2:17  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Romans 5:8  But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15  For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 8:32  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Ephesians 1:14 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ...

Romans 5:17-19 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

I can’t discuss all these passages here. NT Wright would say, “Ok, now let’s go back to the Gospels and see what the story is behind the crucifixion.” But the one thing that jumps out at me here is that Jesus always died “for all,” “for many,” or simply “for sin.” 

What’s missing? Me, my, I. Did Jesus die as a sacrifice? Yes. Did He did instead of someone? Sure. Instead of me for my sin that deserves just punishment for all eternity (i.e., God’s outpouring of wrath)? If you want to say it that way. 

What makes much more sense to me through the narrative and in these passages here is the idea of corporate solidarity. Whether it’s Adam or Israel, both failed. Paul says, In Adam all died. Israel failed in her mission as well. Corporate solidarity has an individual represent a group. It’s similar to covenantal headship, where the family head represents the family. Jesus came and represents Israel, fulfilling her mission, obeying the Law perfectly. As He is murdered unjustly, He is able to become the Suffering Servant and take her sins onto Himself.

Multiple theories of atonement can be simultaneously true.

My point here is that we nearly always see Jesus dying for sins of the people. And if I as an individual am “in Christ” then my sin is forgiven as well. I love when I see tweets about not accepting Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. I personally accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Big difference.

Personal/Individual

We do have one verse with the 1st person singular pronoun, but this seems to be unique.

Galatians 2:20 

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

V. 16-21 is heart of the letter and v. 17 has the plural “sinners.” Paul seems to be using himself as an example here. He discusses his relationship with the law, how it brought death, but also how he fulfills its demands “in Christ.” (Not to mention the whole NPP debate in v. 20 with “faith” vs “faithfulness” of the Son of God.) 

I am not really trying to persuade any one of anything. I’m just thinking through the texts and what makes most sense to me at this point. Even in Galatians 2:20, there’s unity “with Christ” so corporate solidarity is in view. Jesus giving life “for me” doesn’t mention sin directly here, though it is relevant to the passage. This seems to combine the themes of conquering kingdom, rescue, and also substitution. Nevertheless, it’s one verse that has a singular pronoun vs. all the others with plurals, and I would suggest our teaching reflects the same ratio.

This is not to resort to the heresy of thinking someone gains eternal life simply because of “religious heritage” or association. “I’ve been in church my whole life” or “my dad’s a preacher” excuses. This is still an individual decision, but I will probably emphasize the corporate side of the atonement or at least look for it throughout Scripture. And I will look for ways to emphasize community, both local and global over this me and Jesus religion.

In conclusion, for this subject, I never understood the theology of the atonement within the narrative of the gospels (as a kid or even now as adult). I know and believe the truths. I know the verses. But how does a voluntary, even every day occurrence of a death translate to a sacrifice for all mankind, or a payment, or fill in the blank on a cosmic scale? I think this makes much more sense in a corporate, representative sense. And of course, I as an individual am part of the people who gained life and forgiveness because of Jesus’ death. Nothing really changes except a renewed focus on belonging to a group. 

We could probably find other areas of theology where an individualistic mindset is harmful, such as eschatology (trying to get to heaven vs. building for kingdom community). But I think this is sufficient for now.