In an earlier article,[1]  “The Blind Servant”, we presented an individual (not a collective) interpretation of the ‘Who is blind but my Servant?’ as a sarcastic question about Hezekiah along the lines of ‘So, who is blind, my Servant, really?’

In this marginal note we want to “correct” the article, or “nuance” the semantics of the question, or put another suggestion into the frame, depending on your point of view. Our proposal is that the question uses ‘blind’ because there are those who are saying Hezekiah is blind, but the question is not about Hezekiah; rather it is directed to a group except Hezekiah, inviting those of the group to positively identify with the ‘blindness’ of Hezekiah.

The fact that the individual servant of Isa 42:1 is evidently not blind is not a sufficient reason to adopt a ‘collective’ reading of v. 19 (the normal commentary position). We know that Jacob/Israel is a ‘my servant’ (Isa 41:8) and from v. 18 we know they are blind (cf. Deut 29:1, 3), but what is v. 19a doing if it is not a contrast between them and a ‘my Servant’ who is an individual? Instead of taking the Servant to be blind, the question could equally be an invitation for people like the Servant to step forward and be counted. The tone of the invitation, however, has an implicit sarcasm directed towards those who thought the Servant was blind.

If the leaders of the people think the Servant is blind (and are saying so), but he is not, and they are, this question is one way that you might invite people to reject such leaders and ally themselves to the king. These would be those who think they are like the Servant and like the messenger – ‘blind’ and ‘deaf’. The pragmatics of the situation behind the speech are that the Servant is there at court and Isaiah appeals to the audience to step forward, but he uses the disparagement ‘blind servant’ in making the invite – an implied sarcasm directed towards the princes who rejected Hezekiah.

The question has a construction (~a yk) which conveys an exception/exclusion.[2] This form in which the question is put tells us that the exceptive clause is designed to restrict the group whom God is addressing. To appreciate this point we have to recognise the oral quality of the original delivery of these words. The Servant is excluded because it is understood among the audience that he is said to be ‘blind’, and God is inviting similarly ‘blind’ people to listen to him and see what he is doing for the people. The tone behind ‘blind’ is therefore a sarcasm directed towards the leaders of the people.

The tone of what is said and the point of the question are crucial to any interpretation. Commentators see the question as one about the Servant; instead, it is a question directed to everybody except the Servant: who among them is blind like the Servant? The question is equivalent to, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side?’ What commentaries have missed in the text is the performative character of the question and how it works in a context to elicit a recognition on the part of some of the hearers.  Commentaries have been misled by the fact that the people and/or their leaders are openly addressed as blind (v. 18), but this quotes the earlier prophecy of Isa 35:4 which is about the blind and deaf seeing and hearing. Hence, here, people are being invited to think of themselves as blind and deaf like God’s Servant and his messenger. The point is precisely that God’s Servant and his messenger are not blind and deaf – and this is shown by excepting God’s Servant from those being addressed.

If the tone and point of the question is to elicit agreement that God’s Servant is blind, it doesn’t cohere well with the commendation of the Servant in v. 1. If the tone has an implied sarcasm, then the point of the question is reversed: Israel/Jacob think the Servant is blind, but he is not. The point of the question is to call out those who are ‘blind’ like the Servant and ‘deaf’ like God’s messenger—their so-called blindness and deafness (so-called by those against the Servant) are the qualities that God seeks.

[1] A. Perry, “The Blind Servant” CeJBI (Jan, 2013): 45-55.

[2] B. T. Arnold and J. H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 144-145.


Responses