Review of John Walton's "“The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song,” JBL 122 (2003) 734-743.

In his article, “The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song,” John Walton proposes that the substitute king ritual, which was practiced in ancient Mesopotamia from the Isin period to around 300 BC, provides the historical background for Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song. Walton notes some of the various difficulties that have prevailed regarding how the imagery of this passage is to be understood. He then sets out to show how an awareness of the ancient substitute king ritual provides the necessary pre-understanding for certain aspects of this song. Walton concludes that this background establishes a basis by which these difficulties can be satisfactorily resolved.

Walton begins with an examination of the substitute king ritual. He describes this ritual as an ancient custom that might have been undertaken by a king whenever a life-threatening omen was believed to have been imminent. The substitute king ritual was one in which a substitute king would be temporarily installed in the king’s place. History records both instances in which prominent individuals were made to be substitute kings and instances in which persons of low social standing were chosen for the task. This ritual was not thought to be a means of fooling the gods, but rather the role of the substitute king was to serve as a substitute upon whom the gods could carry out the omen. The substitute would serve as king for a time. He would take a queen and perform some of the king’s duties and functions. In the end, the divergence of the omen to the substitute would be made manifest by putting the substitute to death. He would then be given a royal funeral. The final result of this ritual was believed to be the deliverance of the genuine king from the omen’s effects.

After establishing the central principles and tasks of the substitute king ritual, Walton goes on to draw a comparison between the ritual and the fourth Servant Song. He explains that the parallels between the song and the ritual are sufficient to establish his proposal that the author had a substitute king motif in mind. Walton notes that like the substitute king, the Servant in the fourth song suffers for the transgressions and iniquities of others so that they might be delivered. In addition, he observes that the Servant is depicted as one who is not esteemed, but despised. Walton suggests that this characterization is one which parallels the substitute king ritual since in many traditions the substitute would have been someone from the lower echelons of society who would have been looked upon as dispensable. Similarly, the Servant is here depicted as one who is of low stature. Additionally, the fact that the servant was “with the rich in his death” can be understood in light of the ritual since the substitute king would have been given a royal funeral upon his death. Another important parallel that Walton observes is that in the ritual, it is the will of the gods to bring about the king’s downfall. In the same way, the song states that it is the will of Yahweh “to crush” the servant “and cause him to suffer.”

While Walton shows that there are significant parallels between the song and the ritual, he also explains that the author of the song has altered the substitute king motif in certain ways to express the theological point that he is making. Most evidently, the song does not depict a king who is to be delivered, but rather it is a community who receives the deliverance by means of the Servant’s suffering. And while the king would then see his offspring and his days would be believed to have been prolonged, the Servant Song may be understood as a passage in which the days of the corporate body are prolonged so that they would then be able to continue to produce offspring.

Walton concludes this piece by noting some implications of his thesis. First, if his thesis is accurate, the modification of the substitute king motif to accommodate a community rather than a king becomes a variation on democratization. Thus, while the Servant has been understood by others as a democratization in which the corporate body is itself signified by the Servant, Walton’s model is one in which the democratization involves the replacement of the king with a corporate body who is then understood to receive the deliverance. The second implication that Walton notes is that the Servant’s role must be understood as having a vicarious aspect to it. He notes that this position is one that has been disputed by Whybray and others. The third and final implication that Walton lists is related to the identity of the servant. Some commentators have suggested that the Servant is either the prophet himself or corporate Israel. Walton notes that the vicariousness of the suffering eliminates the possibility that the Servant can be identified as the prophet and the corporate identity of those on whose behalf the Servant suffers eliminates the possibility that the Servant is corporate Israel. In conclusion, Walton proposes that the significant overlap between the first two Servant Songs and the messianic figure of Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 61-62 suggests that the Servant should probably be identified with the Davidic king who is depicted in these passages.

In this article, Dr. Walton presents an outstanding example of how comparative studies should be conducted. He explains the historical background concisely and is thoughtful to mention material that is relevant to his thesis. He then compares the background information with the biblical passage and pays careful attention to note both similarities and differences. Finally, he states the conclusions that can be drawn from his analysis and suggests some different ways of dealing with these conclusions. This format was very straight-forward and easy to follow.

Dr. Walton’s analysis and explanation of both similarities and differences between the Servant Song and the substitute king ritual is especially helpful for the way it illustrates the role that such comparisons should play in the identification of historical backgrounds for biblical studies. Walton clearly establishes his position that the similarities between the fourth Servant Song and the substitute king ritual are so significant that the differences simply serve to illustrate the theological point that the author is attempting to express to his audience. Thus, Walton seems to allow the presence of significant similarities to be the determining factor as to whether or not a biblical author had a particular background in mind when he penned a given passage. And while this criterion is somewhat subjective, it would seem to help prevent the interpreter from seeing parallels when such parallels do not exist.

Nevertheless, while such an understanding of the role of similarities and differences is helpful, Walton’s line of argumentation may leave room for questions about whether the number of similarities is sufficient to see the substitute king ritual as background for the Servant Song. First, one might question whether the fact that the Servant is depicted as one who is despised qualifies as a similarity since there are also examples in which the substitute king was taken from the higher echelons of the community. It can at least be said that this may constitute a similarity between the Servant Song and certain traditions of the ritual. But there is a question about whether this tradition of the ritual would have been the one that the author would have had in mind. Perhaps if the other similarities between the song and the ritual are sufficiently significant, then it can be concluded that this was the particular tradition that the author had in mind. A second question raised about similarities relates to the substitutionary role of the Servant. As Walton notes, there is no king mentioned in the song on behalf of whom the Servant suffers. It should also be noted that the similarity between the fact that the Servant was “assigned a grave with the guilty” is contingent both upon a particular rendering of the word ~y[iv'r> and upon the acceptance of the somewhat questionable idea that this guilt would have been something associated with the king. Thus, the definitive similarities seem to be limited to the burial of the Servant, the fact that it was Yahweh’s will (like Marduk’s) to cause the Servant to suffer, and the Servant suffers on behalf of others that they might be delivered. It seems that if these similarities are significant (and perhaps they are), then other parallels can be drawn. However, I suspect that some might be reluctant to recognize these parallels as so significant as to conclude that the substitute king ritual must have been in the mind of the biblical author. This is especially true in light of the number of significant differences that can also be observed.

Nevertheless, while I think that there are still some unanswered questions regarding parallels between the Servant Song and the substitute king ritual, I was swayed by the force of Walton’s argument. Although I do not think that all of the parallels, which Walton lists as similar, are clearly similar in a one-to-one comparison, there are significant similarities nonetheless. Furthermore, it seems that even the mere potential for similarity which comes with viewing the Servant Song through the lenses of the substitute king ritual adds some weight to the overall argument. In other words, even though these parallels may be somewhat questionable on their own, the possibility that the song can be viewed through this paradigm suggests that the author may have had it in mind. For if one assumes a tradition of the ritual in which the substitute is taken from the lower echelons of society, and if one allows for the idea of guilt proposed by Walton, and if one allows for some of the other assumptions required by the argument, then certain aspects of the Servant Song which interpreters have historically had trouble understanding become explainable. This, I believe, adds strength to the force of the overall argument.