The Servant Songs of Isaiah (part 4 of 4)

Part 3: The third servant song

    Background of the 4th Servant Song

The third servant song ends with a condemnation of the people of Israel for refusing to trust Yahweh (Isa. 50:10-11). But to those who seek righteousness, God now exhorts them to remember the covenant he made with Abraham, and know that just as that covenant was fulfilled, he will fulfill his covenant with Israel and restore them (51:1-3). Even if the heavens and earth pass away, God’s salvation will endure (51:4-6). His people should not fear reproach, because God is powerful enough to save them, and he will ensure that they return to Zion (51:7-11).

    Jerusalem has drunk the entire cup of God’s wrath, and has been devastated by famine and the sword, but God will take the cup of his wrath out of her hand and put it in the hand of her oppressors (51:12-23). Jerusalem will rise from the dust and once again be a holy city (52:1-2). Just as Israel was once enslaved in Egypt, and oppressed by the Assyrians, they have once again been sold away for nothing, and so God will redeem them once again (52:3-6). The messengers of Israel will rejoice when they see Yahweh returning to Jerusalem to comfort his people (52:7-10). The prophet exhorts Israel to depart from Babylon and touch no unclean thing, but to purify themselves and return to Zion under God’s protection (52:11-12).

    This section of Deutero-Isaiah is full of ‘new Exodus’ imagery. The prophet says that Yahweh “dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep... made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over” (51:10), referencing the drying of the Red Sea for the Israelites to cross (Exod. 14:21-31). God explicitly refers to the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt and compares it to their current exile in Babylon (52:4-5). He tells them to “get out” (52:11; cf. Exod. 11:8; 12:31) and “purify yourselves” (52:11; cf. Exod. 19:14), and that he will “go before you” and “be your rear guard” (52:12; cf. Exod. 13:21-22; 14:19-20).

    This Exodus imagery transitions immediately into the fourth servant song (52:13ff), supporting the idea that the Servant is a second Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15-19). Moses is called “the servant of Yahweh” more than any other figure in the Hebrew Bible, so the readers of this prophecy would easily make the connection (Exod. 14:31; Num. 12:7-8; Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:1-2, 15; 8:31, 33; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2; 1 Kgs. 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs. 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chron. 6:49; 2 Chron. 1:3; 24:6, 9; Neh. 1:7; 9:14; 10:29; Dan. 9:11; Mal. 4:4). For further evidence that the Servant should be seen as a second Moses, see G. P. Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Second Isaiah,” in The Lord’s Anointed (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995).

    The 4th Servant Song

See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Just as there were many who were astonished at him—so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals—so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate. (Isaiah 52:13-15)

     The first stanza of the fourth servant song (which is by far the longest servant song in Deutero-Isaiah) acts as a prologue to the rest of the song. It introduces (1) the suffering of the Servant, as the people were astonished at his marred appearance which is unlike that of a king, and (2) the exaltation of the Servant, which will also astonish many people, including nations and kings.

Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh 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, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account. (Isaiah 53:1-3)

    Who is speaking (“we”) in this part of the song? It isn’t Yahweh or the Servant, so it must be the prophet himself speaking on behalf of a group of people. Later on, he says, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way” (53:6). Israel is often compared to a wandering flock of sheep throughout the Hebrew Bible, which strongly suggests that the prophet is speaking on behalf of the people of Israel (Num. 27:17; 1 Kgs. 22:17; 2 Chron. 18:16; Ps. 95:7-10; 119:176; Jer. 50:6; Zech. 10:2). As in the other servant songs, the Servant is distinguished from Israel – although both are called “servant.”

    The metaphor of a “young plant” and a “root,” which is applied to the Servant here, are applied by Proto-Isaiah and other Hebrew prophets to the kings of Israel, especially the anticipated Messiah who will restore the Davidic line (Isa. 11:1, 10; Ezek. 17:22; cf. Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12). Throughout the prophets, trees are used metaphorically for kingdoms and their kings (Isa. 10:12-19, 33-34; Ezek. 15:2-7; 17:22-24; 31:2ff; Dan. 4:10ff; Hos. 14:5-7; Zech. 4:3, 11-14). This points to the identity of the Servant as a royal figure, specifically the Davidic Messiah, as shown by the other servant songs (Isa. 42:6; 49:3-6, 8; cf. 55:3).

    The statement that “we held him of no account” (53:3) indicates that the people of Israel would reject their own king whom they had awaited. This was already established in the second servant song, which said that the Servant would be “abhorred by the nation [singular]” (49:7). As mentioned in the first stanza, one reason Israel would reject him is because “he had no form or majesty... nothing in his appearance” that would be expected to befit a king (52:14; 53:2).

Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6)

    The prophet says here that the Servant “was wounded because of our transgressions, was crushed because of our iniquities” (53:5). Interestingly, the words “transgression” (Heb: pesha) and “iniquity” (Heb: avon) are used together in just one other place in Deutero-Isaiah, to describe the sins for which Israel was sent into exile (50:1). There, however, they are used with the preposition b’ (“in”), while here they are used with the preposition m’ (“from”). This is best explained by the fact that Israel was sent into exile for their own sins, but the Servant suffers for the sins of another (i.e., the people of Israel). It also further strengthens the idea that the Servant’s life recapitulates the history of Israel’s exile and restoration, to the extent that the Servant suffers for the same reason that Israel was exiled (because of Israel’s sins).

    As noted above, Israel is often compared to a flock of wandering sheep without a shepherd throughout the Hebrew Bible (Num. 27:17; 1 Kgs. 22:17; 2 Chron. 18:16; Ps. 95:7-10; 119:176; Jer. 50:6; Zech. 10:2). Thus, in this stanza, the Servant is clearly distinguished from the people of Israel, even though he is also identified with Israel in a certain way.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7-9)

    This stanza establishes for the first time that the Servant will not only suffer, but die, because of the sins of the people of Israel (53:8). Unlike Israel, whose guilt is firmly established across the rest of Deutero-Isaiah, the Servant is not guilty (“he had done no violence”), and his death is a “perversion of justice” unlike Israel’s exile which was an act of divine justice (Isa. 42:25-26; 43:27-28; 50:1; 51:17-21). Once again, we see that a clear contrast is being drawn between the Servant and the people of Israel, although his life in some ways recapitulates Israel’s history.

Yet it was the will of Yahweh to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of Yahweh shall prosper. Out of his anguish he shall see; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:10-12)

    The final stanza of the fourth servant song details the reversal of the Servant’s fortunes, which was already noted in the prologue to the song (52:13-15). The Servant’s life was “an offering for [Israel’s] sin,” but he will nevertheless “see his offspring and... prolong his days” (53:10), which implies that he has been resurrected after his death. Interestingly, the text of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX testifies to “he shall see light” (in place of “he shall see”) in v. 11, which based on parallels in the Hebrew Bible appears to be an idiom for resurrection (Job 33:28, 30; Ps. 36:9; cf. Job 3:16; Ps. 49:19).

    Whereas the Servant previously “made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich” (53:9), now he is allotted “a portion with the great... the spoil with the strong” (53:12) in a clear reversal of fortunes. He was “numbered with the transgressors” in order to make “intercession for the transgressors” (53:12); this word, “transgressor” (Heb: pasha), is elsewhere used in Deutero-Isaiah only to refer to the people of Israel (43:27; 46:8; 48:8). The prophet is distinguishing between the Servant and Israel, but he also identifies the two in a crucial way (as the Servant suffers for the sins of Israel).

    Later Interpretation of the 4th Servant Song

Today, many Jewish scholars challenge the Messianic interpretation of the fourth servant song in favor of an interpretation of the Servant as the corporate people of Israel. As we’ve seen, this doesn’t do justice to the text which draws important distinctions between the Servant and Israel. Nor was this always the most common Jewish interpretation of the oracle. The earliest surviving Jewish interpretation of the fourth servant song comes from Targum Jonathan, a first-century interpretive paraphrase, which explicitly identifies the Servant with the Messiah:

Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and he shall be very strong. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13)

This Targum contains a strained interpretation of the later stanzas of the song, replacing the suffering of the Servant with an intercessory prayer by the Servant on behalf of suffering Israel, apparently to avoid the conclusion that the Messiah will suffer and die. Nonetheless, this is an important testimony to an early Jewish Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53.

    In later Jewish writings, the fourth servant song is also interpreted Messianically, most notably in b. Sanhedrin 98b from the Babylonian Talmud, where Isa. 53:4 is interpreted to give the name of the Messiah. Shekalim 5:1 from the Jerusalem Talmud interprets Isa. 53:12 to refer to Rabbi Akiva. Sotah 14a interprets it to refer to Moses instead. Berakhot 5a:11 interprets it to symbolically refer to any individual whom God loves. Three Jewish texts from the latter half of the 1st millennium AD interpret the fourth servant song as Messianic in nature (Tanchuma Toledot 14:1; Pesikta Rabbati p11; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 2:14). Crucially, there appears to be no text from the 1st millennium which interprets Isaiah 53 to refer to the corporate people of Israel, and the most common interpretation was Messianic.

    The fourth servant song is directly quoted or alluded to many times in the New Testament. Jesus applies it to himself once (Luke 22:35-38), and the gospel authors apply it to him twice (Matt. 8:14-17; John 12:37-38). In the book of Acts, an Ethiopian eunuch is reading this passage and asks who it refers to, and Peter uses it to teach him about Jesus (Acts 8:26-35). The author of 1 Peter quotes it to emphasize Jesus’ willingness to be unjustly punished (1 Pet. 2:19-25). Paul quotes it, possibly midrashically, to highlight some people’s refusal to believe his gospel (Rom. 10:16).

    This text is also clearly alluded to in a few places in the New Testament. Most notably, in the famous Carmen Christi, Paul states that Jesus “took the form of a servant” and “became obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:7-8), which echoes Deutero-Isaiah’s declaration that the Servant “poured out himself to death” (53:12). Elsewhere, Paul says that “God made him who knew no sin to be [a] sin [offering] for us” (2 Cor. 5:21), which appears to allude to Isaiah 53:10 (“you [God] make his life [a] sin [offering]”). Overall, the testimony of the New Testament points to Jesus as the singular fulfillment of the fourth servant song, who suffered unjustly and died because of the sins of Israel.

    Conclusion

Isaiah’s servant songs (Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12) have traditionally been interpreted by Christians to be prophetic of Jesus’ ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, and exaltation. But alternate interpretations have also existed, especially the ‘corporate Israel’ interpretation of the Servant, which seems plausible in light of the fact that Deutero-Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God’s “servant” (Isa. 41:8-9; 42:19; 43:10; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 54:17?). Nonetheless, when read carefully in context, each of the servant songs distinguishes between the Servant and Israel, while also identifying them together in some way.

    The historical context of the servant songs is the end of the Babylonian exile, when Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40-55) was written. At this time, the exiled people of Israel were awaiting the return of their land and of the Davidic kingship (cf. Ps. 89:34-51; Isa. 55:3), so the Jewish Messianic hope began to coalesce around a systematic set of beliefs. Because the oracles of Deutero-Isaiah were addressed to the exiled Judean leadership, exhorting them to return home, it would make sense for them to tackle the relevant issue of the Davidic covenant’s renewal and coming of the Messiah.

    The first two servant songs refer to the Servant as “a covenant to the people” (42:6; 49:8), which is confirmed elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah to be the Davidic covenant (55:3). The Servant is therefore the one who will restore the rule of the house of David over Israel. This makes sense of the fact that he is both distinguished from and identified with Israel, as the king was considered representative of his people. The Servant is also closely associated with Exodus typology (49:8-10; 50:2; 52:11-12), which suggests that he is a second Moses, even the “prophet like Moses” (Deut. 18:15-19). This points toward a Messianic interpretation of the servant songs. Yet the Servant will also suffer, be reviled by “the nation,” and die for Israel’s sins, to be resurrected by God in whom he trusted (49:7; 50:5-9; 53:4-12). This points uniquely to Jesus as the fulfillment of all the servant songs.

The Servant Songs of Isaiah (part 3 of 4)

Part 2: The second servant song

    Background to the 3rd Servant Song

The second servant song ends with a declaration that the Servant will guide God’s people and bring them back from exile, using imagery reminiscent of the Exodus (49:8-13). Zion believes that Yahweh has forsaken her, but he promises that he will never forget her, and she will be rebuilt (49:14-18), and the wastelands of Israel will be resettled (49:19-21). The people of Israel will be restored, and kings and queens will bow down to them (49:22-23); their oppressors will be destroyed (49:24-26). Yet this is the same people that was sold because of their sins, who refused to come when God called (50:1-3).

    This short interlude between the second and third servant songs highlights the same themes seen across Isaiah 40-48: the faithlessness of Israel (50:1-3), the faithfulness of God (49:14-18), and the idea of a coming ‘new Exodus’ (49:8-13; 50:2-3).

    The 3rd Servant Song

“The Lord Yahweh has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word. Morning by morning he wakens — wakens my ear to listen as those who are taught. The Lord Yahweh has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I did not turn backward. I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting. The Lord Yahweh helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame; he who vindicates me is near. Who will contend with me? Let us stand up together. Who are my adversaries? Let them confront me. It is the Lord Yahweh who helps me; who will declare me guilty? All of them will wear out like a garment; the moth will eat them up.”

Who among you fears Yahweh and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of Yahweh and relies upon his God? But all of you are kindlers of fire, lighters of firebrands. Walk in the flame of your fire, and among the brands that you have kindled! This is what you shall have from my hand: you shall lie down in torment. (Isaiah 50:4-11)

The third servant song focuses on the obedience of the Servant despite harsh circumstances. Even though he is beaten and insulted, he refuses to retaliate against his adversaries, because he trusts that God will deliver him. In spite of his suffering, he “was not rebellious, [he] did not turn backward” (50:5).

    This is to be contrasted with the infidelity of Israel. The second and third servant songs, both of which emphasize the faithfulness of the Servant (49:4; 50:5), are sandwiched between three statements about how unfaithful the people of Israel have been (48:1-8; 50:1-3, 11). Whereas the Servant unfailingly trusts God’s ability to deliver him (50:7-9), Zion claims that God has forsaken her (49:14). Even within the third servant song, the prophet chastises the people of Israel for refusing to trust in the name of Yahweh and obey his servant (50:10-11). These distinctions establish that the Servant isn’t Israel, although his suffering and vindication recapitulate the history of Israel’s exile and restoration.

    Later Interpretation of the 3rd Servant Song

Although the context shows that the Servant of the third song isn’t the people of Israel, there is less information in this song that allows us to identify the Servant. It’s only from the first two servant songs that we know he must be the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and the second Moses (Isa. 42:6; 49:5-6, 8-10; cf. 55:3). Because of this, the interpretations of this oracle in second temple Judaism are more varied. Targum Jonathan, a first-century interpretive paraphrase which understood Isaiah 42 to be Messianic, interprets the “servant” of the third song to be the prophet:

The Holy One, blessed be He, shall say to all the nations: Who is among you that fears the Lord, that obeys the voice of his servant the prophet, who keeps the law, being in distress, as a man who walks in darkness and has no light, trusting in the name of the Lord, will stay upon the salvation of his God? (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 50:10)

    Unlike the other servant songs, there are no explicit quotes or obvious allusions to Isaiah 50:4-11 in the New Testament. However, it is echoed in the descriptions of Jesus’ suffering in the four gospels, which state that he was insulted, spit on, and beaten (Matt. 26:67; 27:30; Mark 10:34; Luke 6:32; cf. Isa. 50:6), yet refused to retaliate against his oppressors (Matt. 5:39; 1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Isa. 50:6-7). There is a possible allusion to Isaiah 50:7 where Luke says that Jesus “set his face steadfastly” to go to Jerusalem where he would be killed (Luke 9:51). Therefore, based on the NT, the third servant song was fulfilled in Jesus' suffering and unfailing trust in God to vindicate him.

Part 4: The fourth servant song

The Servant Songs of Isaiah (part 2 of 4)

Part 1: The first servant song

    Background to the 2nd Servant Song

After the first servant song, we’re told that Yahweh goes forth like a soldier to destroy the idolatrous nations, and although Israel is stubbornly blinded to his message, he will lead them to salvation (42:10-20; cf. 6:9-13). Although he gave up Israel to the robbers because of their sins, and poured his anger out upon them (42:21-25), now God reassures them that they are his chosen people and he will bring them back from exile (43:1-7). The blind and deaf people of Israel are still the servant whom God has chosen for his purposes, and for their sake, he will destroy Babylon (43:8-21).

    Yet they are still the same people who refused to call up Yahweh in the past and forsook his covenant, constantly rebelling against him, for which he delivered them to complete destruction (43:22-28). In spite of this, he shall bless them according to the covenant he made, because he is faithful (44:1-8). The idol makers are nothing and have deluded themselves (44:9-20). But God has redeemed his people Israel from their idolatry and has forgotten their transgressions (44:21-23). Yahweh, creator of all things, now declares that he will use the Persian king Cyrus to carry out his purposes, to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (44:24-28). For the sake of Israel, God will cause Cyrus to destroy the idolatrous nations, set the Jews free, and rebuild their city (45:1-19).

    Babylon continues to worship its idols, but Yahweh swears by himself that all people who now reject him will turn to him and be saved, and the people of Israel will be glorified in him (45:20-25). Babylon will go into exile, and Israel will be saved, in a reversal of the original exile (46:1-7). Israel continues to stubbornly resist God’s salvation, but he has declared his purpose from the beginning and will bring it to pass (46:8-13). Babylon, which has sat like a queen over the nations, will be ashamed and thrown into the dust in a single day (47:1-15).

    Yet Israel continues to obstinately resist the salvation that Yahweh promised them; the people of Israel have been rebellious from birth (48:1-8). Even so, for the sake of his glory, God restrains his anger against them (48:9-13). God will send Cyrus to perform his purpose against Babylon (48:14-16). If only Israel had followed his commandments, they would have become a great nation and wouldn’t have been destroyed! (48:17-19) But now Yahweh has redeemed his servant Jacob and calls him to come out of wicked Babylon (48:20-22).

    This lengthy section brings a few important themes into focus. First, the rebelliousness of Israel against God’s commandments – and God’s covenant faithfulness in spite of this – is reiterated five times between the first and second servant songs (Isa. 42:21-43:7; 43:22-44:8; 46:8-13; 48:1-13, 17-22). This is probably the most prominent theme in all of Deutero-Isaiah.

    Another important theme is the idea of a second Exodus, which has been recognized by most commentators (see B. W. Anderson, “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and Prophetic Tradition,” in Magnalia Dei [New York: Doubleday, 1974] for a summary of the evidence). In fact, Deutero-Isaiah is bookended by passages that employ Exodus typology (Isa. 40:1-11; 55:12-13). This wasn’t lost on the authors of the New Testament, such as Mark, who combined Exodus 23:20 and Isaiah 40:3 together into a single prophecy (Mark 1:2-4). Four of the at least ten Deutero-Isaianic passages which use Exodus typology are found in this section between the first and second servant songs (42:14-16; 43:1-3, 14-21; 48:20-21).

    The 2nd Servant Song

Listen to me, O coastlands, pay attention, you peoples from far away! Yahweh called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me. He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” But I said, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my cause is with Yahweh, and my reward with my God.”

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 Yahweh, and my God has become my strength — he 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.” (Isaiah 49:1-6)

    This song is bookended by Exodus allusions – Israel is first exhorted to “get out” from Babylon (48:20; cf. Exod. 11:8; 12:31), and is then told, “They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split open the rock and water gushed out” (48:21; cf. Exod. 17:1-7). After the song, God once again tells Israel to “get out” (49:9), and says, “they shall not hunger or thirst, neither scorching wind nor sun shall strike them down, for he who has pity on them will lead them and by springs of water guide them” (49:10; cf. Exod. 15:22-27; 16; 17:1-7). This clear Exodus typology wouldn’t have been lost on the original audience.

    Furthermore, as in the first servant song, the Servant is described in very similar terms as Israel in the surrounding context. Both are called “servant” (44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20), both are said to have been “formed in the womb” by Yahweh (44:2, 24; 46:3; 49:15), and the Servant is even called “Israel” in the second servant song (49:3). Kings and queens will bow down to the Servant (49:7) and Israel (49:22). In some way, the Servant is identified with Israel by the author.

    However, just as in the first servant song, the Servant is also distinguished from the Israel-servant. The Israel-servant’s infidelity and stubbornness is one of the main themes of Deutero-Isaiah, and God says that “from birth you were called a rebel” (48:8); in contrast, the Servant labored for God, and will be rewarded for it (49:4). This becomes even clearer in the third servant song, where the Servant says, “The Lord Yahweh has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious; I did not turn backward” (50:5). Furthermore, the Servant is said to restore the remnant of Israel (49:5-6), which distinguishes him from that remnant. Finally, the Servant is called “a covenant to the people [singular]” (49:8), which in context can only refer to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, thereby distinguishing him from the Israel-servant.

    If the Servant isn’t Israel, who is he? In the first and second servant songs, he is called “a covenant to the people” (42:6; 49:8). The “covenant” (Heb: berith) is mentioned two other times in Deutero-Isaiah, and is identified with “my steadfast, sure love for David” (54:10; 55:3). This indicates that the Servant is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, the king who will restore Davidic rule over Israel. As the king was considered representative of his people (cf. 2 Sam. 24:14, 25), this explains how the Servant could be identified with and distinguished from Israel at the same time.

    The Servant is closely associated with ‘new Exodus’ imagery (49:8-10), showing that he is viewed as a second Moses, perhaps even the “prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Indeed, Moses is called “the servant of Yahweh” more than any other figure in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 14:31; Num. 12:7-8; Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:1-2, 15; 8:31, 33; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2; 1 Kgs. 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs. 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chron. 6:49; 2 Chron. 1:3; 24:6, 9; Neh. 1:7; 9:14; 10:29; Dan. 9:11; Mal. 4:4).

    The second servant song tells us a few important new facts about the Servant. First, we’re told that he will not only restore the remnant of Israel, but also bring God’s salvation “to the ends of the earth” (49:6). This hints at a more universalistic aspect of the Servant’s ministry, and ties into the surrounding context, especially Isaiah 45:20-25 where Yahweh swears by himself that all peoples (including, apparently, idolatrous Babylon) will be ashamed, turn to him and be saved. Second, the Servant is said to be “despised by the nation [singular],” almost certainly referring to the nation of Israel, but will be vindicated by God (49:7). In this way, the Servant as king of Israel recapitulates the history of Israel’s exile and restoration, but unlike Israel, he remains faithful through it all.

    Later Interpretation of the 2nd Servant Song

The second servant song is alluded to several times in the New Testament. The first allusion to Isaiah 49 is at the beginning of Luke’s gospel, when Simeon, the “righteous and devout” man, meets Jesus:

“...my eyes have seen your [God’s] salvation... a light for revelation to the nations and for glory to your people Israel.” (Luke 2:30-32)

This is best understood as an allusion to the first and second servant songs, which refer to the Servant as both “a light to the nations” and “a covenant to the people” (Isa. 42:6; 49:6, 8).

    It was also explicitly quoted by Paul in his sermon to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia, after they rejected his message, in order to show that God’s salvation was also available to the gentiles:

“It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of the life of the Age, we are now turning to the gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you to be a light to the gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” (Acts 13:46-47)

Interestingly, rather than interpreting this passage as referring to the Messiah, Paul takes it as a command that applies to himself and his companions. This could be understood in two ways. It’s possible that Paul was using midrashic interpretation, by taking the quoted verse out of its original context and applying it to his own situation. This was a recognized form of interpretation in first century Judaism used by the other New Testament authors (e.g., Matt. 2:17-18; 8:17; 13:14-15, 35). It’s also possible that Paul viewed this Messianic passage as applicable to himself by virtue of the fact that he was “in Messiah” (cf. Rom. 8:1; 12:5; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 1:22; 3:28; Eph. 1:1; etc.).

    Finally, the second servant song is alluded to by Paul in his sermon to Agrippa II, one of the Roman governors in Palestine:

“I stand here, testifying to both small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place: that the Messiah must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the gentiles.” (Acts 26:22-23)

As in Luke 2:32, this appears to be an allusion to the first and second servant songs, as Paul claims that “the prophets” said the Messiah would be a “light to the gentiles” and “to our people” (cf. Isa. 42:6; 49:6, 8). Therefore, the New Testament (at least the author of Luke-Acts) supports a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 49, claiming that it was fulfilled in Jesus’ suffering and the spread of salvation to the gentiles through him. 

Part 3: The third servant song

The Servant Songs of Isaiah (part 1 of 4)

    One of the Messianic prophecies most commonly used by Christian apologists is the fourth servant song of Isaiah, because it seems to fit the life and suffering of Jesus so well (Isa. 52:13-53:12). However, the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah’s servant songs has come under fire, primarily from Jewish scholarship which rejects any individual as the fulfillment of these oracles, instead seeing Israel as the collective “servant” of Yahweh. In this series, we’ll look at each of the servant songs (not just the fourth one) in their original context to see how the various interpretations compare.

    The Historical Setting of Isaiah 40-55

To understand the servant songs, one must first understand the context in which they were written. Isaiah 40-55, also known as “Deutero-Isaiah,” was written in the late Exilic period (ca. 539 BC). This text was written to the Israelites in exile in Babylon, who were awaiting the restoration both of their land and the Davidic kingship. Although the idea of the Messiah was around before the Babylonian exile, it was during the Exilic period that Jewish Messianism began to coalesce into a systematic set of beliefs, as the people of Israel looked forward to the re-establishment of their nation under the rule of an ideal Davidic king, and God accordingly progressively revealed to them the later stages of his plan. This historical and theological context must be taken into account as we read the Isaianic servant songs.

    Many conservative commentators, however, have sought to preserve the traditional view that the book of Isaiah was written by a single author (the prophet Isaiah) in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. This view is very implausible for multiple reasons:

1. Deutero-Isaiah mentions the Persian king Cyrus by name three times (Isa. 44:28; 45:1, 13). I don’t deny that God could have inspired a 7th-century prophet to specifically name Cyrus, but this would’ve had no significance for the prophet’s original audience. Furthermore, the author never explains who Cyrus is, apparently presupposing his audience’s familiarity with this figure. Cyrus isn’t presented as a far-off figure, but as a king who is already ruling, whom God has chosen to carry out his purpose (the destruction of Babylon).
2. Deutero-Isaiah presupposes the Babylonian exile and destruction of Jerusalem as a past event in many places (Isa. 40:1-2; 42:22-25; 43:5-7, 14, 27-28; 44:26-28; 45:13; 47; 48:14, 20; 49:8-18; 51:3, 11, 17-23; 52:1-12; 54:1-10). The text is addressed to a people whose punishment has already reached its end (Isa. 40:1-2). In the many places where Jerusalem is described as destroyed, and Israel is said to be in Babylon, there’s no indication that it’s a prophecy. It’s presupposed, not predicted.
3. The name “Isaiah” is found 16 times in the first 39 chapters of Isaiah, which are attributed to that prophet, but isn’t found at all in Deutero-Isaiah (chaps. 40-55) or Trito-Isaiah (chaps. 56-66). These later chapters are entirely anonymous. Thus, even from a perspective of absolute biblical inerrancy, these sections don’t need to have been written by Isaiah, as there is no intextual indication that they were.
4. There are stylistic differences between Proto-Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah, including different theological themes. These differences are too numerous and complex to list here, but see S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 209, for a good but somewhat dated summary.

The re-dating of Isaiah 40-55 to the late Exilic period doesn’t threaten the divine inspiration of this book. On the contrary, it helps us to better situate this divinely inspired prophecy within its historical context, making it more intelligible to us.

    Background to the 1st Servant Song

Deutero-Isaiah begins by proclaiming, “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received double from Yahweh’s hand for her sins” (Isa. 40:1-2). The prophet proclaims that the wilderness will be leveled to provide a path for God, for his glory to be revealed and his people to be comforted (40:3-11). The greatness of God, compared to the earth and everything on it, is such that nations and their rulers are accounted as nothing against him (40:12-23). He has the power to destroy and renew nations, and he has chosen to renew his weary people Israel, even though they think he has forgotten them (40:24-31).

    God has roused up a victor from the east – almost certainly referring to the Persian king Cyrus – to destroy the nations; at his approach the coastlands tremble (41:1-7). But Israel is God’s servant, and shall not be harmed because he is with them (41:8-10). Indeed, the nations that oppressed Israel will be ashamed and become nothing (41:11-13). Israel shall become a sledge, used for threshing grain, in order to make the nations like chaff (41:14-16). God will not forsake the poor and needy (41:17-20), but the idols and their makers are nothing at all, and be destroyed by the conqueror from the north (41:21-25). Yahweh and no one else has declared this – no one else at all (41:26-29).

    This introduction to the first servant song is important in a couple of ways. First, it establishes the historical context of the prophecy as the end of the Exilic period, just before Cyrus comes to destroy Babylon and free the Israelites (see above). Second, it establishes Israel as a “servant” of Yahweh (Isa. 41:8), which is surely significant for the aptly-named servant songs.

    The 1st Servant Song

Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching. (Isaiah 42:1-4)

    This song ties into the surrounding passages in several ways. It’s connected to the preceding passage by the word “Behold!” (Heb: hen), which is used in Isa. 41:29 to highlight the worthlessness of the idols and their makers, and again in Isa. 42:1 to introduce the Servant. This indicates that the author is making a contrast between the worthless idol-makers and the true Servant of Yahweh. Furthermore, the terminology used to describe the Servant is very similar to the terms describing Israel in the surrounding context, most notably “servant” (41:8-9; 42:19; 44:1; 45:4) and “chosen” (43:20; 44:1; 45:4).

    However, there are also crucial differences between the Servant of this song and the Israel-servant, that seem to deliberately draw a contrast between the two. The Israel-servant is hardened into a threshing sledge with which to make the nations like chaff (41:11-16); in contrast, the Servant will not even “break a bruised reed,” and he is called to “bring forth justice to the nations” and be “a light to the nations” (42:1, 6). The Israel-servant is stubbornly blinded to God’s message (42:18-20; 43:8). Finally, the Servant is said to be “a covenant to the people [singular]” (42:6); this can only refer to the people of Israel, which explicitly distinguishes him from the Israel-servant.

    Therefore, the Servant of the first servant song can’t be the same as Israel, as the author deliberately draws a contrast between the two. The key to identifying the Servant is the fact that he is “a covenant to the people” (42:6). The “covenant” (Heb: berith) is mentioned three other times in Deutero-Isaiah, once in the second servant song (49:8), and twice to the people of Israel (54:10; 55:3). This covenant is identified with “my steadfast, sure love for David” (55:3). The Servant is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, the Messiah who will restore the Davidic kingdom over Israel. This makes sense in an Exilic-period text like Deutero-Isaiah, as the people of Israel were then questioning whether God had broken his covenant with the house of David, and how and why it would be restored (cf. Ps. 89:34-51).

    Later Interpretation of the 1st Servant Song

The Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 42 isn’t anachronistic, or a later Christian eisegesis of the text. The earliest known Jewish interpretation of this text comes from Targum Jonathan, which contains a first-century Jewish interpretive paraphrase of the text:

Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring, my chosen in whom one delights; as for my Word, I will put my Holy Spirit upon him; he shall reveal my judgment to the nations. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 42:1)

This targum gives a clearly Messianic view of the first servant song, showing that such an interpretation was at least present in Second Temple Judaism.

    This interpretation is carried over into the New Testament. The author of Matthew explicitly claims that the first servant song was fulfilled by Jesus, specifically by his healing of the multitudes (Matt 12:15-21). It may also be echoed in the passages describing Jesus’ baptism, which highlight his anointment by God’s Spirit (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), although on the other hand they may be referencing a different Messianic prophecy (Isa. 66:1). Throughout his recorded sermons, Peter identifies Jesus as the “servant” (Gk: pais; cf. Isa. 42:1 LXX) of God (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). Therefore, according to the NT, the first servant song of Isaiah points forward to Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.

Part 2: The second servant song

The Incoherent Metaphysics of the Trinity

    The Trinity is a doctrine that has been believed by most Christians since the 4th century AD. This doctrine teaches that God is one, while also being three in a different way. God is one ousia, or “essence,” or “nature,” or “being,” while being three hypostaseis, or “persons.” These are metaphysical terms, drawn from the Greek philosophy that existed when the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated. What happens if we examine the doctrine of the Trinity according to the metaphysical basis on which it rests? Can it help to elucidate what the Trinity actually means, or does it further obfuscate it, or even show it to be utterly contradictory? In this post, we’ll try to find the answer to that question.

    The relationship between ousia and hypostasis

In 4th-century Greek metaphysics, ousia was a term that can mean two things: either a type of nature (e.g., “human nature”) or a particular instance of that nature (e.g., a human). This distinction was called by Aristotle the “primary ousia” (i.e., individual) and “secondary ousia” (i.e., genus/species/nature). Hypostasis could also mean a type of nature, but from the Council of Nicaea onwards began to be used solely as a term for a concrete instance of a nature (e.g., a human is a hypostasis of “human nature”). The terms ousia and hypostasis were actually used synonymously by many 4th-century writers, like Athanasius and Epiphanius. [1] So what does it mean that God is one ousia and three hypostaseis?

    If we interpret ousia as “secondary ousia” (i.e., genus/species/nature), then it means that God is one nature and three particular instances of that nature. This was the view held by two of the Cappadocian Fathers, who helped to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Basil of Caesarea, “The distinction between ousia and hypostasis is the same as that between the general and particular; as, for instance, between the animal [i.e., humanity] and the particular man” (Epistle 236.6). Gregory of Nyssa held the same conception, as is clear from his work On “Not Three Gods”.

    The title of that work notwithstanding, this view does imply the existence of three gods. In this formulation of the Trinity, ousia refers to a particular nature, like human nature; but the existence of a single human nature doesn’t change the fact that 8 billion instances of “human nature” are still 8 billion humans. Therefore, three concrete instances of a divine “secondary ousia” would just be three gods. Gregory of Nyssa argues against this (in On “Not Three Gods”) by claiming that three human persons should actually be called “one human” because they all have a human nature, but this is a clear abuse of language, as shown by the fact that this concept of humanity is not found other than in obscure philosophical writings like Gregory’s. This interpretation of the Trinity thus leads to a contradiction, as it postulates the existence of both one God and three gods.

    What if the one ousia is a “primary ousia,” that is, a particular instance of a nature? In this case we have another clear contradiction, because a hypostasis is also a concrete instance of a nature. This view, therefore, postulates that God is both one thing and three of the same thing, a logical impossibility. Such an incoherent view of the Trinity was held by the Cappadocian father Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as the later theologian John of Damascus. [2] Both Gregory and John admitted that thinking about the Trinity led to a logical contradiction, but they believed that it was necessary to affirm what the Church taught, so one must simply avoid thinking logically about God. [3] This view will be critiqued later in my post.

    Finally, we could interpret ousia as a concrete instance of a nature, while interpreting hypostasis as a term synonymous with prosōpon, referring to a personality or mode. This takes us into modalism, which, although formally condemned as a heresy, has been popular in Western Christianity as a one-self theory of the Trinity. [4] The view that God is one self, and his three hypostaseis are modes of that self, was held (probably) by Augustine of Hippo as well as more recent influential theologians like Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. [5] This interpretation of the Trinity holds that God is a single self who eternally acts in three different ways (as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) relative to himself.

    The problem with this view is that it implies that each hypostasis cannot be called “God,” because a part of a thing can’t be equal to the whole, whereas trinitarian theology insists that they are each fully God. For example, although you might be able to refer to “happy Andrew” and “sad Andrew” (modes of myself) by my name, my happiness and my sadness are plainly not identical to me, and cannot be called “Andrew.” A classical theist would object that God’s attributes are simply identical to himself (divine simplicity), and so each of God’s modes can be called “God.” But then we’re left with the same incoherent claim as before, that God is both one thing and three of the same thing, because each of God’s modes are just identical to God!

    Where does this leave us? We can’t interpret ousia as a nature or a concrete instance of a nature, as both lead to logical contradiction. Nor can we interpret the three hypostaseis as three modes or parts of the one ousia, because this either conflicts with trinitarian theology or leads to logical contradiction. There are only so many ways that one thing can relate to three things, and the Trinity conflicts with all of them. The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, is a logically incoherent mess, according to the metaphysical language which it is based upon.

    “Unitarians are just rationalists who use philosophy”

A trinitarian might object (as many trinitarians do) that unitarians are simply bringing in philosophy where it doesn’t belong, futilely trying to understand everything about God from a rationalist perspective. The fact is, though, that unitarians aren’t the ones who brought in philosophy and metaphysics to explain God. It was trinitarians themselves who introduced the metaphysical terms ousia and hypostasis to explain their doctrine! The difference is that unitarians simply follow the trinitarian metaphysical logic through to its incoherent conclusions.

    In fact, the unitarian conception of God requires much less metaphysical speculation than trinitarianism. Unitarians believe that God is one person, the Father alone, who is perfect in knowledge and power; that Jesus is his unique Son, the ideal human Messiah who perfectly reveals his will and was exalted to become Lord of the universe; and that the Holy Spirit is the powerful presence of God (the Father) acting in the world. This requires no metaphysical concepts to understand (unless “God” is considered to be a metaphysical concept). Unitarians accept that there are many things about God that we can’t understand (Isa. 40:28; 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Cor. 2:11), but we deny that God expects us to believe anything that is logically impossible.

    It’s possible that trinitarians could formulate a Trinity theory that avoids the pitfalls of metaphysics. Something like this has already been attempted by Beau Branson, who recognizes that existing Trinity theories are inadequate. [6] Branson argues that “God” refers properly to the Father, while the god-ness of the Son and Holy Spirit are ontologically derivative from God (the Father), and that this was the view held by the earliest trinitarians. [7] It’s not clear how this is substantively different from subordinationist unitarianism; most unitarians would agree with this, while perhaps disputing the precise nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit (e.g., that the former is eternally begotten and uncreated).

    Furthermore, if any trinitarians completely do away with the metaphysical language of ousia and hypostasis, they would end up just as untethered from Church tradition as unitarians. The creeds which promulgate the doctrine of the Trinity also demand that we say God is one ousia and three hypostaseis. Until any trinitarians do come up with a purely phenomenological (non-metaphysical) explanation of the Trinity, the accusation that unitarians are more “rationalistic” than trinitarians is unfounded.

    “But the Trinity is just a mystery that can’t be understood”

When pressed into a corner on the logical incoherence of the Trinity, some trinitarians will resort to “mysterianism,” the position that the Trinity simply can’t (and shouldn’t) be understood. [8] Indeed, most Christians simply avoid thinking about the details of the Trinity altogether. After all, God’s ways are far beyond our understanding (Isa. 40:28; 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Cor. 2:11); of course there are things about him that we can’t know! Does this rescue the doctrine of the Trinity from its own logical incoherence?

    No, it doesn’t. The unitarian claim isn’t that everything about God can be understood, but that this particular doctrine about God leads to a logical contradiction. Unless the trinitarian is willing to admit that true contradictions about God can exist — which, unlike the claim that God’s ways are beyond ours, isn’t found in the Scriptures — mysterianism does nothing to rescue trinitarianism. Furthermore, if we can’t even know what the doctrine of the Trinity means, how can anyone affirm it? The language of “one God in three persons” then becomes nothing more than a shibboleth to distinguish ‘true’ and ‘orthodox’ Christians, who blindly follow the authority of the Church, from ‘heretics’ whose only crime is their failure to affirm a meaningless statement!

    Finally, if we can’t know what the doctrine of the Trinity means, how can we know that it is revealed in the Scriptures? By removing all meaningful content from the affirmation of “one God in three persons,” mysterianism undermines the entire basis for believing in the Trinity, at least for sola scriptura Christians. (For Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mysterians, “one God in three persons” must be affirmed as a meaningless shibboleth simply because the Church demands it.) Thus, Protestants can’t be mysterians if they want to have any basis for their belief in the Trinity. Moreover, this appeal to “mystery” can’t be found in the New Testament, which uses “mystery” to refer to a revealed doctrine.

    A modified mysterian view, argued for by Matthew J. Farrar, is that God is not “a being” but rather the ground of all being, so it’s wrong to apply the same metaphysical logic that applies to physical beings to God. [10] Once again, though, it’s trinitarians, not unitarians, who apply the metaphysics of ousia and hypostasis to God; unitarians just follow this logic through to its (incoherent) conclusions. Furthermore, as argued earlier, how could God expect us to affirm something that is logically impossible to understand, and how could we possibly know that the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures if we can’t even know what it means? Finally, although it’s true that God is the ground of all being, the denial that he is himself “a being” runs the risk of reducing “God” to a brute fact, rather than the rational, relational, utterly personal Being revealed in the Scriptures.

    “But the church has always believed it”

If the doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent (and therefore wrong), why has the Church been in almost 100% consensus about this issue since the 4th century AD? Is it possible that so many learned theologians could have been wrong for so long? And isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the Scriptures? In fact, this doctrine wasn’t believed by the earliest Christians, but was a later development over the centuries, finally coalescing into what is today considered “orthodox trinitarianism” by the mid-4th century (after the First Council of Nicaea). [10]

    To understand just how much Christian theology has evolved even since the early 4th century, let’s consider briefly how John 1:1, the trinitarian prooftext par excellence, was interpreted at that time. The setting is the 330s AD, several years after the Council of Nicaea. Two very prominent bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea and Marcellus of Ancyra, both of whom were considered orthodox at the time, are debating the meaning of this verse. [11]

    Eusebius argues that because John refers to the Word as “God” (Gk: theos) rather than “the God” (Gk: ho theos), he indicates that the Word was not “the God who is over all,” i.e., the Father. Rather, the Word is “an image of the God” who was “made like, in the closest way possible, to the archetypal divinity of the Father” (ET 2.17.1-3). “For there is but one true God... ‘and the Word was God,’ but not the one true God” (Eusebius, Letter to Euphration). According to Eusebius, those who declare that the Word is “the Most High God himself” are “strangely confounding things most widely different” (Oratio 11.16).

    Marcellus of Ancyra, on the other hand, believed that there is only one God who is a single person because he uses singular pronouns to define his uniqueness (Fragment 91-92, 97). Thus, he argued, the word of God cannot be a second god or Demiurge, but is the literal reason and spoken word of God, similar to a human’s reason and spoken word (Frag. 67, 87-89, 99). It is a “power” (Gk: dynamis) of the Father, rather than a separate person (Frag. 70). God’s word is what animated the human flesh of Jesus, controlling it like a puppet, which is how “the word became flesh” (Frag. 5, 7, 73, 104-105).

    Neither Eusebius nor Marcellus held to the trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1, which is that “the Word was God” (Gk: theos ēn ho logos) refers to a second person in the one God. This view, which today is the hegemonic interpretation of the verse, doesn’t even seem to have crossed their minds. This incident serves to demonstrate just how much Christian theology has evolved (and narrowed) even since the First Council of Nicaea. How did this happen? There were many theological controversies throughout the 4th century, finally ending when the pro-trinitarian Roman emperor Theodosius I simply outlawed all other views in AD 380:

According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the singular Deity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty and in a Holy Trinity. We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. But as for the others, since, in our judgment they are demented and insane, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of Heretics, and shall not presume to give to their assemblies the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment of our authority which, in accordance with the will of Heaven, we shall decide to inflict. (Edict of Thessalonica)

This edict was upheld by a ‘kangaroo council’ the next year, called by Theodosius I, which only trinitarian bishops were allowed to attend. [12] From that point onward, until the Protestant Reformation, non-trinitarians were harshly persecuted and not allowed to lead congregations. The fact is, a consensus arrived at by coercion is no consensus at all. Rather than accept the logically incoherent doctrine of the Trinity simply because it was forced on Christianity by an emperor, we should return to the Scriptures to see if, just maybe, this doctrine is actually not biblical after all. [13,14]

______________________________

[1] For an analysis of how the use of these terms changed over time, see G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1952), 157-196.

[2] John of Damascus understood the Trinity in light of the ideas of perichoresis and circumincession, that the persons of God fully indwell each other (loosely drawn from passages like John 14:11). He used the analogy of three suns, which fully overlap each other in all three dimensions to form one sun. Obviously, the issue with this is that three objects which totally overlap each other don’t continue to be three objects, but become only one object. Thus, perichoresis and circumincession fail to solve the contradiction that arises from the claim that God is one thing and three of the same thing.

[3] Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.33; John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I.14.11; cf. Charles C. Twombly, Perichoresis and Personhood: God, Christ, and Salvation in John of Damascus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 12-16.

[4] Dale Tuggy, “Trinity [1.1-3],” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 20 November 2020, accessed 5 May 2024, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/#OneSel.

[5] On Augustine, see Dale Tuggy, “History of Trinitarian Doctrines [3.3.2],” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020, accessed 5 May 2024, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Aug; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 1; Karl Rahner, The Trinity (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997 [1967]), 101-102.

[6] Beau Branson, “No New Solutions to the Logical Problem of the Trinity,” Journal of Applied Logics 6, no. 6 (2019): 1051-1092.

[7] Beau Branson, “One God, the Father: The Neglected Doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father, and Its Implications for the Analytic Debate about the Trinity,” TheoLogica 6, no. 2 (2022).

[8] Dale Tuggy, “Trinity [4.1-2],” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/#Mys.

[9] Matthew J. Farrar, “Why the Trinity Just Doesn’t Make Sense to Christadelphians,” dianoigo (blog), 27 August 2018, https://blog.dianoigo.com/2018/08/why-trinity-just-doesnt-make-sense-to.html.

[10] For the history of development of Christian theology in the 1st through 4th centuries, see my blog post series about “The evolution of early Christian theology.” See also R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1988) for a great scholarly treatment of how trinitarianism emerged from the theological upheavals of the 4th century AD.

[11] Maurice Wiles, “Person or Personification? A Patristic Debate about Logos,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird (Oxford: OUP, 1987), 281-289; for a longer analysis of the beliefs of Eusebius, Marcellus, and their contemporaries, as well as a history of the post-Nicene period, see posts five and seven in my blog post series, “The evolution of early Christian theology.”

[12] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.5-10; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.7.2-5.

[13] To be sure, I’m not saying that all trinitarians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity just because the Church teaches it. (That’s certainly not why most Protestants believe it.) Most Christians believe it because that’s how they’ve been taught to interpret the Bible, so as to rule out all other views as heresy. But their belief in the Trinity can ultimately be traced back to when this doctrine was forced upon most Christians in a coercive, top-down fashion, in AD 381.

[14] To see what the Scriptures actually teach about the nature of God and Jesus, see my blog post, “The Biblical Case for Unitarianism.”