SERVANT OF THE LORD

from the nation, for 'my people' (if tlie text be sound) cannot be made to mean anything but Israel except by very forced exegesis. Consequently, in the interests of consistency some scholars have struck out the word ' Israel ' in 49*, others have corrected ' the transgression of my people' In 63' to 'our transgressions,' or 'their transgression,' or 'the transgression of peoples' (all comparatively slight changes in the Hebrew text). It may be observed that S3* is in other respects ad-mittedly obscure, it not also corrupt.

It must suffice to refer briefly here to one or two of the chief points tor or against the two main alternatives — that in these passages, as elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah, the servant is Israel, or something less than Israel (whether a section of the nation or an individual). We shall consider the latter alternative first.

(1) Two passages have been considered to demand a distinction between the servant and Israel. One of these, 53', as already stated, certainly does demand it, it the text be sound; but this is doubtful. The other passage is 49'- », which follows the statement in the present text that the servant is Israel (49*). These verses as translated in RV imply that the servant and Israel are distinct. But though the translation of RV in V.' is grammatically correct, it is not necessary; other grammatically correct translations are: 'and now Jahweh that formed me to be his servant hath determined to bring back Jacob again to himself, and that Israel should be gathered to him,' or ' and now saith Jahweh that formed me from the womb to be his servant in that he brought Jacob again to him, and drew Israel unto him.' Either of these translations allows of the identity of Israel and the servant. In ■V.' KV is incorrect. The Hebrew is extremely awkward and questionable, but literally translated v." runs: '(a) lighter (thing) than thy being my servant is the raising up of the tribes of Jacob and the restoring of the preserved of Israel, and I will give thee for a light of the nations,' etc. 'The 'also' in 'I will also give' of RV, which suggests that the illumination of the nations is a second function of the servant, in addition to one already described, is absolutely unrepresented in and unsuggested by the Hebrew text. Thus v.» is ambiguous as to the point at issue; it may mean (if it means anything) either, You do not exhaust your service by restoring Israel, you have also to illumine the nations ; or. The fact that you are my servant means more than that I shall rescue you, it means that I shall make use of you for carrying put my purpose of illumining the nations.

(2) Apart from the passages just discussed, which are either textually open to suspicion or ambiguous in meaning, there is nothing that directly forbids identifying the servant with Israel in 42'-' 49'-' 50'-' 52"-53'2, as he is unmistakably identified with Israel by the Deutero-Isaiah in many passages (see § 4). In the present text of 49' the identification is actually made. But the strongest argument for the correctness of this identifica-tion is to be found in the fact that it does fuller justice to the general tenor of the passages: this is perfectly clear in 42'-'; here the Divine speech and the writer's mind are alike filled with two subjects — the Servant and the Nations of the world; the servant is to instruct the nations in the religion of Jahweh: granted that the servant is Israel, we have here a constantly re-curring contrast, Israel and the nations; otherwise Israel is totally disregarded. In 49'-' the servant ad-' dresses the nations of the world, and the function of the servant, which on some interpretations (see above) alone is mentioned, and on any interpretation alone receives prominence, is that of spiritually illumining the nations; in 52"-" Jahweh states that, as the past humiliation of the servant by its very extent attracted far-spread attention, so his coming exaltation will impress nations and kings. Here again, nothing is said of Israel, unless the servant is Israel. In SS"*' certain speakers make a confession that they had misjudged the servant of

SEVENEH

Jahweh, terming him not the righteous one but a sinner, and regarding the unparalleled sufferings which they now perceive had been borne for them, as due to the fact tliat he was abandoned by Jahweh. Again, the least difficult view as to the speakers who make this confession is that they are the nations referred to in 62", and that the servant is the Hebrew nation. That Israel suffered for the nations is certainly a remarkable idea, but that all the sufferings of Israel were not due to its own sins appears to be the thought of Deutero-Isaiah in 40*. Again, the relative righteousness of Israel, which is all that need be implied if we see in ch. 63 a confession of the nations, is implied elsewhere, e.g. in 40". It is impassible even to indicate here all the difficulties that beset, or the points that favour, the several theories of interpretation. The case for identifying the servant with Israel throughout la 40-65 has been ably presented in English by K. Budde in AJTh, iii. pp. 499 ft., and by A. S. Peake m the Problem of Suffering in the OT, pp. 34-72 and 180-193, who gives on pp. 44-59 a valuable critical translation of the chief passages. With equal ability the identification of the servant with the ideal Israel is maintained by J. Skinner m the Cambridge Bible for Schools, ' Isaiah xl.-lxvi . , ' pp.xxx.-xxxvii. and 233-238, together with the notes on the relevant passages. The case for interpreting the servant in some passages as an individual has not been fully re-stated in English over against the recent thorough arguments for other interpretations; the student may best turn to Delitzsch's Com. (Eng. tr. 1890), or G. A. Smith's 'Isaiah,' vol. ii. (Ex-positor's Bible). T. K. Cheyne, in EBi 4398-4410, offeraa very valuable and penetrating criticism of all these theories, as a prelude to his own Jerahmeelite theory, for which he has hitherto found no supporters.

9. In NT some of the passages in the Deutero-Isaiah are frequently cited or referred to: and in most cases, though not in all (see Ac 13", cf. 2 Ti 2'"), the servant is identified with Jesus (.e.g. Mt 8" 12"-2', Lk 22", Ac 8»2'). This, of course, proves nothing with regard to the original meaning; for Christian, like Jewish, exegesis was capable of individualizing terras that originally had a wider application; for an instance of this, see He 2'-', where what is stated in Ps 8 of man in general is referred specifically to our Lord. G. B. Gray.

SESIS (1 Es 9") =Shashai, Ezr 10".

SESTHEL (1 Es 9") =BezaIeI, Ezr 10™.

SET. — 'Set at' is valued at, as 2 K 12« 'The money that every man is set at.' 'Set at nought' means treat with contempt, as Lk 23" 'Herod with his men of war set him at nought.' 'Set by' is to value, esteem, as 1 S 18" 'His name was much set by.' 'Set to' means to affix, as Jn 3" 'He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.'

SETH.— The third son of Adam, Gn 425 (j) 53 (p)_ 1 Ch 1', Lk 3". In the first of these passages J assigns a characteristic etymology for the name. Eve being made to say, ' God hath set (shath) for me another seed instead of Abel,' for which reason she called him Shsth (i.e. 'setting' or 'slip'). In Sir 49" Seth is coupled with Shem as 'glorified among men.'

SETHUB.— The Asherite spy (Nu 13" (").

SETTLE (RVm 'ledge').— Ezk 43" (only) as tr. of 'azdrah, which is used of the two ledges between the base and the hearth of the altar.

SEVEN.— See Number, § 7.

SEVENEH (Syene).— A town at the First Cataract, the southern extremity of Egypt proper: Egyp. Swn, now Asman (Aswan). It lies on the east bank, opposite the island of Elephantine, where lay the capital of the first nome of Upper Egypt, and behind it are the celebrated granite quarries. 'From Migdol to Syene' is the correct tr. ui Ezk 29" 30«, as LXX and RVm. At Syene-Elephantine there was a colony of Jews with a sumptuous temple of Yahu (Jehovah; cf. Is 19") earlier than Cambyses' conquest InB.c. 525, and through-out the Persian occupation. For this we have the evidence of papyri written there in the Aramaic language.

839