a
wide-spread
belief
tliat
the
image
of
a
liurtful
thing
drives
the
evil
away.
In
the
absence
of
a
direct
statement
we
cannot
say
whether
it
was
Jahweh
who
was
worshipped
under
the
form
of
the
bronze
serpent
of
2
K
18'
—
tiie
Nehushtan,
or
piece
of
bronze,
as
it
was
called.
Some
think
it
represented
the
Celestial
Dragon,
others
the
spirit
of
an
ancestor,
others
a
chthonic
deity:
Robertson
Smith
believed
that
it
was
the
totem
of
David's
house.
There
are
traces
of
serpent-*orship
in
Israel
(1
K
1'
Zoheleth='
snake';
Neh
2").
The
two
points
of
comparison
present
to
our
Lord's
mind
in
Jn
3"
are
—
(1)
the
lifting
up
of
the
serpent
on
the
pole
and
Himself
on
the
Cross,
and
(2)
the
voluntary
looking
of
the
Hebrews
to
the
serpent
—
for
the
verb
employed
means
more
than
simply
seeing
—
and
the
faith
of
believers
(see
Sir
16'-').
J.
Tatlob.
SERUG.—
Son
of
Eeu
(Gn
ll^"-
22-
«,
Lk
3»).
SERVANT.
—
See
next
art.
and
Slave.
SERVANT
OF
THE
LORD.—
In
this
phrase,
as
re-peatedly
in
the
EV
of
the
OT,
'
Lord
'
is
substituted
for
'Jahweh,'
the
proper
name
of
the
God
of
Israel,
which
stands
in
the
Hebrew
text.
1.
Originally
the
term
'servant'
in
this
phrase
is
simply
correlative
to
such
terms
as
'lord,'
'master,'
which
the
ancient
Hebrews,
in
common
with
their
Semitic
kinsmen,
applied
to
their
god.
In
the
first
instance,
the
phrase
'the
servant
of
Jahweh'
merely
defines
a
man
as
one
who
acknowledges
Jahweh
as
his
god
;
it
corresponds
closely
to
what
we
might
rather
call
a
worshipper
of
Jahweh.
Naturally,
therefore,
it
may
stand
in
antithesis
to
a
similar
phrase
in
which
the
name
of
another
deity
takes
the
place
of
that
of
Jahweh.
Thus
the
'servants
of
Jahweh'
and
'the
servants
of
the
(Tyrian)
Baal'
are
contrasted
in
2
K
lO^^,
though
the
fact
that
the
same
word
is
used
in
both
phrases
is
obscured
by
the
RV,
which
exaggerates
a
distinction
capriciously
introduced
by
the
punctuators
into
the
Hebrew
text.
2.
Thus
it
will
be
readily
understood
that
any
Israelite
might
be
called
'the
servant
of
Jahweh,'
and
as
a
matter
of
fact
a
large
number
of
individuals
received
this
phrase
as
their
name;
it
is
familiar
to
English
readers
in
the
form
Obadiah,
which
was
originally
pronounced,
as
the
LXX
indicates,
Abdiyah
(cf.
the
parallel
name
Abdiel
—
'servant
of
God').
Adherents
of
other
gods
received
similar
proper
names,
such
as
Bbed-melech
(wh.
see)
=
'servant
of
the
god
Melech,'
or
Abd-Melkarth,
Abd-Eshmun,
and
Abd-Majidt,
typical
PhcEnician
and
Naba-taean
names
meaning
respectively
servant
of
the
gods
Melkarth,
Eshmun,
and
Manat.
3.
But
just
as
modern
terms
denoting
religious
attachment,
like
'
Christian
'
or
'
believer,'
may,
according
to
the
connexion
in
which
they
occur,
differ
greatly
in
the
fulness
of
their
meaning,
so
'the
servant
of
Jahweh'
might
imply
a
higher
degree,
or
more
special
form,
of
service
than
is
necessarily
involved
in
the
proper
name
Obadiah,
or
in
the
distinction
between
'servants
of
Jahweh'
and
'servants
of
Baal.'
Such
fuller
significance
attaches
to
the
phrase
when
prophets
(Am
3',
2
K
9',
Jer
7^,
and
often)
or
priests
and
Levites
(Ps
134')
are
specified
as
'the
servant
of
Jahweh';
so
also
when
particular
individuals
are
thus
described.
Among
the
individuals
specifically
termed
'the
servant
of
Jahweh'
(which
in
speeches
of
Jahweh
of
course
becomes
'my
servant')
are
Abraham
(Gu
26"),
Moses
(Ex
14»,
Nu
12"-,
and
often),
Joshua
(Jos
242'),
Caleb
(Nu
14"),
Job
(Job
l'),
David
(2
S
3"8
and
often),
Eliakim
(Is
22"),
Zerubbabel
(Hag
2^),
and
the
person
who
is
termed
'the
Shoot'
(EV
text
'the
Branch,'
Zee
S*).
4.
The
use
of
the
term
in
Deutero-Isaiah
(Is
40-55)
is
peculiar.
In
certain
passages
this
writer
clearly
uses
the
term
to
describe
the
nation:
the
entire
people
is
personified,
spoken
of
as
an
individual,
and
called
by
Jahweh
'my
servant,'
or,
by
the
prophet
speaking
in
his
own
name,
'the
servant
of
Jahweh.'
These
passages
are
41"-
44«
49'
44i'-
45'.
The
same
use
of
the
term
is
found
in
Ps
130^,
which
was
written
much
later;
but
it
does
not
occur
in
any
extant
literature
that
is
unquestionably
earlier
than
the
Deutero-Isaiah,
for
Jer
30'°
(not
found
in
the
Greek
text)
=46"'-
is
probably
not
a
saying
of
the
prophet
Jeremiah's,
and
in
Ezk
37™
282S,
sometimes
cited
as
parallel,
the
phrase
is
used
of
an
individual
of
the
past,
the
patriarch
Jacob,
not
of
the
nation
of
the
present.
5.
But
though
the
particular
character
of
'
the
servant
of
Jahweh'
in
which
the
nation
is
personified
may
be
peculiar
to
the
Deutero-Isaiah,
and
one
or
two
writers
influenced
by
him,
similar
personifications
are
common
enough
with
Hebrew
writers,
and
are
sometimes
so
remote
from
our
habits
of
thought
and
expression
that
the
RV
has
sacrificed
the
figure
to
gain
intelligibility,
as,
e.g.,
in
Jos
9',
which,
literally
rendered,
runs,
'and
the
man
of
Israel
said
unto
the
Hivite,
perhaps
thou
art
dwelling
in
my
midst
'
(for
further
examples
see
G.
B.
Gray,
Divine
Discipline
of
Israel,
79
f.,
or
'Numbers,"
in
ICC
p.
265
f.).
Other
notable
instances
of
personi-fication
retained
even
in
RV
are
Hos
11'
'When
Israel
was
a
child,
then
I
loved
him,
and
called
my
son
out
of
Egypt
'
(where
son
=the
Hebrew
nation),
and
Ps
129's-,
where
Israel
is
to
say,
'
Many
a
time
have
they
afflicted
me
from
my
youth
up,
yet
have
they
not
prevailed
against
me.
The
plowers
plowed
upon
my
back;
they
made
long
their
furrows.'
6.
But
while
the
personification
of
the
nation
as
the
'servant
of
Jahweh'
is
certain
in
the
passages
cited
in
§
4,
there
are
other
passages
in
which
most
scholars
in
the
past,
and
many
of
the
present,
have
concluded
that
the
title
has
another
application
—
that
it
refers
pro-phetically
to
Jesus
Christ,
or
to
some
individual
known
historically
to
the
writer,
such
as
Jeremiah,
Jehoiachin,
Zerubbabel,
or
the
Eleazar
of
2
Mac
6'"-*',
or
to
the
pious
section
of
Israel.
In
so
far
as
this
conclusion
rests
on
the
individualizing
traits
in
the
description
of
the
servant
in
such
passages
as
Is
50'-'
52"-53"',
it
is
uncon-vincing;
for
the
facts
can
be
equally
well,
and,
so
far
as
the
death,
burial,
and
resurrection
(cf.
Ezk
37)
of
the
servant
are
concerned,
far
better,
explained
by
the
analogy
of
the
personifications
referred
to
in
the
last
paragraph,
as
figurative
descriptions
of
the
history
of
the
nation
in
the
past,
and
of
the
prophet's
hopes
for
it
in
the
future.
7.
In
one
passage
(Is
SO'"-),
indeed,
'the
servant
of
Jahweh'
is
probably
not
the
nation
Israel;
for
the
audience
addressed
appears
to
consist
of
Jews;
if
so,
the
servant
here
is
either
an
individual
or
a
compara-tively
small
class
—
not
the
whole
of
the
pious
Israelites,
for
he
is
distinguished
from
'those
that
fear
Jahweh.'
This
passage
is
commonly
considered
to
be
the
work
of
a
later
writer
than
the
Deutero-Isaiah.
8.
The
most
important
differences
of
interpretation
are
concerned
with
four
passages,
42'-'
49'-8
50'-s
52'»-53'!.
These
are
commonly,
though
not
unanimously,
held
to
be
the
work
of
one
writer,
but
several
scholars
hold
that
this
writer
was
not
the
Deutero-Isaiah.
The
critical
question
is
largely
an
exegetical
one;
if
there
really
is
the
wide
difference,
which
some
claim
to
discover,
between
the
use
of
the
term
'
servant
of
Jahweh
'
in,
and
the
religious
standpoints
of,
these
passages
and
the
Deutero-Isaiah,
differences
of
authorship
may
not
unnaturally
be
interred;
otherwise
the
grounds
for
disintegration
are
slight.
Unfortunately
the
inter-pretation
of
the
passages
is
rendered
difficult
and
am-biguous
by
the
state
of
the
text;
that
the
text
is
to
some
extent
corrupt,
especially
in
52's-S3'2,
is
now
generally
admitted;
but
as
to
the
exact
extent,
and
the
nature
of
the
corruption,
differences
of
judgment
pre-vail.
No
consistent
interpretation
of
'the
servant
of
Jahweh
'
given
in
these
four
passages
is
possible
on
the
basis
of
the
present
text;
for
in
49s
the
servant
is
identified
with
the
nation,
but
in
53^
he
is
distinguished
838
