Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>]

People of all theologies and backgrounds struggle with the identification of
Isaiah's servant, and go back and forth between singular and corporate
views. Many or most scholars have now settled into some form of a both/and
view, whether they describe their ideas as fluid, synthetic, pyramid,
oscillation, corporate solidarity, or concentric circles. 

Variously, the servant may be the personified nation or its representative
(Engnell, C. C. Torrey, W. Robinson, Eissfeldt), some future messiah
emerging as the individual servant par excellence (North) or oscillation
between nation and individual (Rowley). Delitzsch is well-known for his
pyramid theory in which the servant is always Israel, properly identified as
"either [1] according to the character of the overwhelming majority of its
members ..., who had forgotten their calling, or [2] according to the
character of those living members who had remained true to their calling and
constituted the kernel, or [3] as concentrated in that one Person who is the
essence of Israel in the fullest truth and highest potency" (p. 186). He has
also described it in terms of concentric circles, the outer being the entire
nation of Israel with the inner circle being the pious remnant; the Messiah
is the center. Kaiser calls it the "corporate solidarity" of the servant. 

My observation concerns textual warrant for this "both/and" unity of the
individual and the corporate nation  (Or, if i'm allowed my presuppositions,
ultimately between Christ and His Church). I observe three verses in
particular here:

1. Isaiah 49:3 refers to the Servant as clearly a singular individual in
this context, but calls Him "Israel" (vocative or apposition?) as if He were
in some way equivalent to or representative of the nation.

2. Isaiah 43:10 is clearly of the nation's individual people, yet is
significant in its interchange of the plural in MT, "you [2MS] are my
witnesses" (plural in both MT pointing and LXX) with the singular, "My
servant whom I have chosen," and back to the indisputable plural "that you
may know ... believe ... and understand" (2MP for all 3 verbs). Corporate
Israel was chosen for the purpose of knowing and believing Yahweh, something
foundational to their mission but which many individuals failed to do.

3. Isaiah 44:26 shows that the servant (Israel's) ministry obligation was to
get out the true prophetic word (in contrast to the false message of v. 25).
Again note the interchange between plural "messengers" and singular
"servant."

Regardless of one's theology, am i pressing too much on the singular/plural
interchange? Any comments?

Dan Wagner