In a 1970 article in the Tyndale Bulletin , J. A. Motyer offers this superb summary of the plot of the servant songs: “the Lord’s purposes of grace for His people raise the problem of the plight of the remaining major portion of humanity {e.g. 41:28, 29). To this, the Lord’s reply is the universal commission of His Servant (42:iff.). But this Servant cannot be national Israel, for though this Israel bears the honoured title (42:18, 19) it does so in dishonourable fashion, having been given into the power of the nations in punitive divine action (42:24), and even at that unrepentant (42:25). Yet the Lord’s purposes for His people have not failed. The enslavement will be reversed and they will return home, but on their return they are still unreconciled to God (48: 20-22). Therefore the Servant’s task must be rephrased to include the nation along with the Gentiles in a vast, universal work of reconciliation (49:1-6). Far from being in any sense identifiable with the nation, or even with the best of the nation, the Servant, by contrast to their faithless despondency (49:14fr.) displays buoyant and confident obedience (50:4fr.), and they are called on to play the role of spectators (52:13) while he performs the individual and vicarious role of sin-bearer.”

What throws off readers, though, is the fact that Isaiah “is not afraid to allow false identifications to stand pro tern (just as, for example, the writer of detective fiction casts suspicions here and there), until the telling of the whole story clears away misconceptions, and the very entertaining of the misconception itself contributes to the final understanding of the whole.” Israel, Cyrus, the Remnant are all brought up as potential “servants,” only to fail in the task.