Servant Song Two (Isa 49:1–6 with 49:7–12) and Servant Song Three (Isa 50:4–9 with 50:10–11)

According to redaction criticism, the Servant Songs are separate works that were woven into Isa 40–55 by a later editor. Whether this is the case or not, a reading of Isa 40–55 seems to suggest that the duties of the office of servant transfer in Isa 49 from Israel and Judah to an individual (Childs, Isaiah, 412).

Isaiah 49:5 distinguishes between Israel and the servant: “And now Yahweh says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and my God has become my refuge” (Isa 49:5). Here, Jacob and Israel (which may be synonyms) and the servant are separate figures. The one that Yahweh formed from the womb “to be his servant” is bringing “Jacob back to him” and gathering “Israel.” Isaiah 49:6 also makes this distinction clear: “He [Yahweh] says, ‘It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’ ”

In Isa 49:5–6, Jacob and Israel are being gathered by the servant, raised up by him, and restored by him. The juxtaposition of Israel and Judah against the servant suggests that the line “You are Israel my servant” from Isa 49:3 is an annunciation of a new servant—one who will fulfill all or part of Israel’s role. This is not to suggest that Israel and Judah have forfeited their role as servant—the text doesn’t indicate whether that is the case or not. Rather, the servant in Isa 49 will be the one who restores Israel and Judah. This suggests that either the office of servant has transferred (Childs, Isaiah, 493), or there are multiple servants, each fulfilling a different role. Childs interprets the “You are Israel my servant” line in Isa 49:3 as an annunciation of a new Israel as well as a new servant.

On the basis of this juxtaposition, Orlinsky has stated that “it cannot be the people of Israel that [are] involved” (see Orlinsky, So-Called “Suffering Servant,” 23). Orlinsky held this view primarily because of Isa 53:9: “he had done no wrong and there was no deceit in his mouth.” For Orlinsky, this immediately rules out Israel as the servant, since Israel has done wrong against God and others.

Snaith views the servant as a metaphor for the exiles who are going to return to their native land (see Snaith, Isaiah 40–66, 146–53, 166–76). However, in line with Orlinsky’s view, we may assume that Isa 53:9 rules out the second-generation Babylonian exiles as the servant in 49:1 forward because they too had likely done wrong (although the text is silent is about any wrongdoings). Yet the servant may “have done no wrong” in a legal sense, not in the moral sense of having never done anything wrong (compare Psa 24:3–4). This would leave open the possibility of the servant in Isa 49 forward being second-generation Babylonian exiles.