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.

Review of John Walton's “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” in The Genesis Debate, Edited by Ronald Youngblood, (Wipf & Stock, 1999) pages 184-209.

In his article, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” John Walton argues against interpreting the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as angels. Rather, he proposes that the identification of the “sons of God” is best made in light of parallels between Genesis 6 and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Walton argues that these parallels, along with information from several other ANE sources, provide a historical picture in which the most likely identification of the “sons of God” is ANE kings.

Walton begins with a brief overview of the debate. He explains that there are three basic interpretations of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. There are those who believe that they are men from the line of Seth. Others believe that the “sons of God” are angels. And lastly, others believe that the “sons of God” are rulers. Walton indicates that there are two recent variations on the second and third views. The variation on the second view is one in which the “sons of God” are understood to be “gods.” The variation on the third view (the position with which Walton aligns himself) is a position in which the “sons of God” are understood to be royalty.

Walton gives a significant amount of space to addressing arguments that have been made by those who hold to the position that the “sons of God” are angels. Walton first gives a brief overview of the basic arguments that have been used to support this position. He says that proponents of this view have argued that the author of this section in Genesis 6 sets the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” in antithesis to one another in such a way that the “sons of God” cannot be understood to be part of the “daughters of men.” Therefore, the “sons of God” cannot be human since advocates of this argument say that the “daughters of men” must be understood to refer to humanity in general. Another argument is that the “sons of God” should be understood to be angels since every other time the same form of the phrase appears in the Scriptures it refers to angels. Lastly, Walton explains that some have argued that the “sons of God” should be interpreted as angels since this is the only known interpretation prior to the time of Christ as well as the way the NT authors interpret it (Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4).

After having presented these basic arguments for this position, Walton then gives the reasons that he does not find these arguments compelling. Regarding the argument dealing with the antithesis between “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” he explains that it has long been recognized that there is no logical problem with the idea that the “daughters of men” refers to women in general while the “sons of God” could refer to certain men. Regarding the lexical argument, Walton points out that the number of times that the phrase “sons of God” occurs in the Scriptures is not sufficient to establish a lexical basis for limiting the meaning of that phrase to angels. Rather, Walton argues, the interpreter should draw from biblical and ANE uses of the formula “son(s) of X.” After examining the way this formula is used, Walton concludes that although it is theoretically possible that “sons of God” refers to angels, it is not an interpretation that is dictated by the use of the phrase “sons of God” or the formula “son(s) of X.” Lastly, with respect to the argument from tradition, Walton observes that while extra-biblical sources are interesting and sometimes helpful, that they are not finally authoritative. And finally, the idea that the NT authors understood Genesis 6 in this way is not definitively demonstrated by the texts in question. Jude 6 uses the word “fornication.” which does not seem to be the same thing that is being expressed in Genesis 6. Similarly, while 2 Peter 2:4 speaks about the sin of angels, it is not explicit about the specific sin which these angels committed.

As an alternative to interpreting the “sons of God” as angels, Walton proposes that the parallels between Genesis 6, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ANE texts, suggest that “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to royalty. First, Walton indicates that Gilgamesh and other ANE kings are said to be of divine lineage and are therefore qualified for the title “sons of God.” Second, he indicates that Gilgamesh is depicted as a giant. If the Nephilim are also understood to be giants (as many interpreters understand them to be based on Numbers 13:33), then Gilgamesh may be understood to fit this category as well. Third, by virtue of his heroism, Gilgamesh qualifies as one of the “heroes of old.” Fourth, Gilgamesh seems to be depicted in the epic as detaining women (taking the daughters of men). Lastly, the fact that the “sons of God” find their longevity reduced would have been particularly fitting if they are understood to be royalty. The reason that this is the case is that kings were especially interested in immortality.

Walton concludes that the parallels between Genesis 6 and the Epic of Gilgamesh relate specifically to ANE royalty. And while there is no literary dependence between these two works, he says that both seem to reflect ANE concepts about royalty. If this is the case, then Genesis 6 can be understood as part of a progression from the individual rebellion of Adam, Cain, and Lamech, to the royal rebellion here in Genesis 6, to the societal rebellion in the narratives of the flood and Babel.

In this article, Dr. Walton demonstrates exemplary use background materials. Explaining material that is relevant to his proposal, he describes the historical background from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ANE texts in relation to Genesis 6. As he presents this information, he compares it with the biblical passage and notes potential similarities between the two. Finally, he states the conclusions that can be drawn from his analysis and explains how one’s understanding of Genesis 6 is enhanced in light of this material.

In the final analysis, I did find Dr. Walton’s proposal convincing, but not definitively so. The problems he notes relating to the arguments for the view that the “sons of God” are angels are well-taken. Certainly, neither the lexical argument nor the antithesis argument is valid if they are presented deductively. However, if the conclusions of these arguments are simply presented as ways of making sense of the material found in Genesis 6, then they are not so easily dismissed. For example, while there is not an antithesis between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” that necessitates that they must be understood as non-humans and humans, respectively, they may be understood in this way without any kind of logical difficulty. Thus, this position cannot be completely dismissed on the basis that the argument does not deductively establish an understanding of “sons of God” as non-human. Similarly, Walton recognizes that while the lexical argument does not necessitate that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels, it also does not rule out the possibility that they may be.

I was also not completely comfortable dismissing early extra-biblical interpretations of “sons of God” as angels. While it is true that these interpretations are not ultimately authoritative, sometimes those who are more contemporary to the historical context are better able to understand the text. In addition, such interpreters may also be connected with an interpretive tradition that stems back to the original reading of the text. Of course, in this particular case, this is merely speculative. But while there may not have been a sufficient allotment of space to devote to the question of ancient interpretations in this article, it may be something that could be examined more deeply.

With respect to the specific ANE parallels that Walton observes between Genesis 6, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ANE texts, I was convinced that ANE kings could very easily have been categorized as “sons of God.” It is also very intriguing that Gilgamesh is depicted as somehow detaining women. However, the purpose for which these women were being detained is not clear. In addition, the parallels between Gilgamesh and the Nephilim, and between Gilgamesh and the heroes of old, are contingent upon certain understandings of the Nephilim and an identification of the “sons of God” as the Nephilim and/or the heroes of old. Thus, if these conditions could be further established, Walton’s argument might be better established.

In conclusion, while there are still some unanswered questions regarding these parallels, I was swayed by the force of Walton’s argument. And although I do not think that all of the parallels are equally clear, the overall picture seems to enhance the role of the narrative within the greater context. Thus, the progression from individual rebellion, to royal rebellion, to societal rebellion that can be seen through this paradigm, seems to add strength to the overall argument by allowing the interpreter to see a kind of literary structure that is typical of such literature.