ABR 60 (2012) 32–48

THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 1

Edward J. Bridge
Department of Ancient History, Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University
edward.bridge@mq.edu.au

A BSTRACT
This article studies the metaphoric use of db( in the Prophetic Books in the
Hebrew Bible to determine what possible associations or connotations from the
institution of slavery are evoked by its use. It is a term that is primarily found in
exilic or post-exilic prophets. For the nation Israel, associations evoked are
“work” and “possession,” along with “loyalty.” For Israel’s leaders, especially
Moses and David, associations of “work” and “loyalty” are evoked. The proph-
ets and the Suffering Servant of Isa 40–55 are portrayed as more slave-like than
David, Moses or Israel. But for all, it is their close relationship with Yhwh that
confers status. When db( is applied to ordinary people who worship Yhwh,
only “loyalty” is the association evoked.

I NTRODUCTION
THE USE OF THE SLAVE TERM db( (NOUN) IN CONTEXTS NOT REFERRING TO
slaves and slavery has long been noted. Lexica and theological dictionaries2
along with specialist publications3 give a good indication of the wide range of

1
I wish to thank Dr Stephen Llewelyn and Dr Ian Stewart for reading previous drafts
of this article and for their helpful comments.
2
Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner et al, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1994–99) 773–76; H. Ringgren, H.
Simian-Yofre, U. Rüterwörden, “dbA(f ‘ābad; dbe(e ‘ebed; hdfb&(j ‘abōdâ,” TDOT 10
376–405; F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, W. Gesenius, The New Brown-
Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979
[1907]) 712–15; W. Zimmerli, J. Jeremias, The Servant of God (trans. H. Knight, J.
Jeremias and others; SBT; London: SCM, 1965) 11–36; W. C. Kaiser, “db(
(‘ābad), work, serve,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (ed. R. L.
Harris, G. L. Archer, B. K. Waltke; Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) 639–40, here 639;
and C. H. Haas, “Slave, Slavery,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
(ed. T. D. Alexander, D. W. Baker; Leicester; IVP, 2003) 779.
3
E.g. E. J. Revell, The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical
Narrative (CBET 14; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 30–36; Murray J. Harris, Slave of
Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ (NSBT; Leicester:
Apollos, 1999) 174; Curt Lindhagen, The Servant Motif in the Old Testament (Upp-
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 33

meanings the term can have. One major non-slave context is the use of db( to
refer to people in relation to God. This includes kings, notable individuals,
prophets, the “Suffering Servant” in Isa 40–55, and a messianic figure. TDOT
gives a good coverage of this context, noting a number of key ideas. For ex-
ample, when db( is used for unspecified people, it is only used for people
who worship Yhwh. When used for Moses, it indicates his role as mediator of
revelation and refers “to the special status of his relationship with God.” When
used for David, it is in connection with his chosen and specially blessed status.
When used for prophets, it emphasises their obedience to God and, as with
Moses, their spokesperson role. When used for Israel, it is in the context of
promises of deliverance from the exile. TDOT also notes that db( is rarely
used for worshippers of Yhwh as a group.4 Put together, these comments sug-
gest that db( in the applications mentioned carries within it the idea of status.
One matter that TDOT and the other lexica do not discuss is why db( can
be used to cover such a wide range of people and contexts, and why the idea of
status creeps in. I wish to address this gap by analysing how db( works as a
metaphor, especially when it is used to refer to people in relation to God. This
is the key use of db( in the prophetic books (Isaiah–Ezekiel, Hosea–Malachi,
Daniel), so these will form the core texts for my analysis. A similar study has
already been done for Psalms.5 The aim of my study is to determine possible
associations, or connotations, from the biblical practice of slavery evoked by
the use of db( to refer to people in relation to God. These possible associa-
tions can help answer why db( was used for people in relation to God.
The method of analysis used in this study is fully articulated elsewhere.6 To
summarise, my study is a study in metaphor. Metaphor works by evoking
common understandings that people have for a word or object (the “vehicle”)
which are not necessarily the literal meanings for that word or object and
which are believed to be apt to describe another word or object (the “topic” or
“tenor”). In this study, such common meanings or understandings of the “vehi-
cle” are designated as “associations,” a term derived from Max Black.7 Con-
text determines which associations are evoked and which are not. A review of
the biblical practice of slavery shows that possible associations are “posses-

sala: Lundquistska Bokhandeln, 1950); J. P. M. van der Ploeg, “Slavery in the Old
Testament,” in Congress Volume, Uppsala, 1971 (SVT 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 72–
87; A. Jepsen, “Amah und Schiphchah,” VT 8 (1958) 293–97.
4
TDOT 10 394–96.
5
Edward J. Bridge, “Loyalty, Dependency and Status with YHWH: the use of ‘bd in
the Psalms,” VT 59 (2009) 360–78.
6
Edward J. Bridge, “The Metaphoric Use of Slave Terms in the Hebrew Bible,” Bul-
letin for Biblical Research 23 (2013) [forthcoming]
7
Max Black, “Metaphor,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55 (1955) 273–94.
See also L. David Ritchie, Context and Connection in Metaphor (Basingstoke, New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) 160–63.
34 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

sion” (with the derivation, “control”), “inferior status,” “work,” “debt/

poverty,” “oppression” and “propensity to run away.” A derived association is
“loyalty.”8 It is my contention that one or more of these associations lies be-
hind the various metaphoric uses of db( for people in relation to God.
The use of slave terms for people in relationship to a deity has a long his-
tory, going back to at least early Babylonian times, evidenced by seal inscrip-
tions of a wide variety of peoples.9 Kings in the ancient Near East especially
called themselves “servant” of various deities.10 In addition, there is a long his-
tory of the use of slave terms for courtiers and officials.11 This has two impli-
cations. One is that the meaning of “servant” for db( has become distinct
from “slave”; that is, it is lexicalised. A second is that associations from the
royal court may be evoked when db( is used in relation to God, under the as-
sumption that a person’s relationship with God is a reflection of the ancient
Near Eastern experience of power relationships rather than slavery.12 It is my
contention that the use of db( for people in relation to God, though conven-
tional, evokes associations from the institution of slavery rather than from the
institution of kingship.

8
Bridge, “Metaphoric Use” (forthcoming).
9
See citations in Bridge, “Loyalty” 370 n. 29.
10
S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 vols; trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Ox-
ford: Basil Blackwell, 1962) 1.56 n. 42. See H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A
Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature
(Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1948) 10 (Babylon, Assyria), 240–
42, 248, 254 (Assyria); O. R. Gurney, “Hittite Kingship,” in Myth, Ritual and King-
ship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in
Israel (ed. S. H. Hooke; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 121 (Hittite); J. Baines, “Ancient
Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context,” in King and Messiah in Is-
rael and the Ancient Near East: Proceeding of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar
(JSOTSup 270; ed. J. Day; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988) 27–28
(Egyptian). See also W. G. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in King
and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old
Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998) 53–70; John Day, “The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in
King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford
Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998) 86–87 (Canaanite); Moshe Weinfeld, “The King as Servant,” JJS 33
(1982) 189–94; and Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Au-
thority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979).
11
See e.g. William J. Murname, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (SBLWAW
5; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 36, 45–46, 53, 62–63, 142, 144, 151, 153, 171–77, 180–
82, 186, 193–96, 236–37, 240 (the use of “lord” for Pharaoh in Amarna period in-
scriptions); William W. Hallo, “Seal Inscriptions,” in Early Near Eastern Seals in
the Yale Babylonian Collection (ed. B. Buchanan; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1981) 440–60, here 444–45, 447, 449–62 (early Babylon period seal inscrip-
tions); Piotr Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia (SBLWAW 3; Atlanta,
1993) 59, 66–68, 72–73, 84, 95–96, 99, 108, 112, 114, 121 (early Babylon period
seal inscriptions); EA 8, 29, 40, 55, 96, 101, 164, 239, 271 (Amarna period letters).
12
See Bridge, “Loyalty,” 370–71 for a brief discussion.
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 35

db( IN THE P ROPHETIC B OOKS

The use of db( to denote people as “the servant/s of Yhwh,” in prophetic texts
are as follows:
For Isaiah: Isa 20:3
For prophets in general: Amos 3:7; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4;
Ezek 38:17; Isa 44:26 (implied); Zech 1:6; Dan 9:6
For David: Jer 33:21–26
For an ideal future king of the Davidic line: Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; cf.
Zech 3:8
For the people of Israel:
dbe(e (“servant”; usually “my servant Jacob”): Isa 41:8–9; 42:19 (im-
plied); 43:10; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; Jer 30:10; 46:27–28
dba(F (“serve”): Jer 30:9; Ezek 20:4013
For Jacob as the ancestor of the people: Ezek 28:25; 37:25
For the “suffering servant”: Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–7; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12
For Zerubbabel: Hag 2:23
For Moses: Mal 3:22 [4:4]; Dan 9:11
For a foreign king, Nebuchadnezzar: Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10
For Eliakim, a high official: Isa 22:20
The list shows three main groupings of people who are identified as db(:
Israel, Israel’s leaders and prophets. Nebuchadnezzar, when designated as
Yhwh’s db(, appears in the role of God’s agent, that is, he “works” for Yhwh,
or can be considered to be a vassal of Yhwh.14 The “suffering servant” in
Isaiah 40–55 is a special case and will be treated separately.
Other patterns are also visible. All occurrences of db(, except for Amos
3:7, occur in exilic and post-exilic prophetic texts.15 Israel as Yhwh’s db( is

In contrast to the prophetic texts, dbe(e for denoting Israel as God’s servant is rare in
13

legal and narrative texts, appearing only in 1 Kgs 8:32, 36 // 2 Chr 6:23, 27; Neh
1:6, 10. Instead, dba(f is used more frequently: Exod 3:12; 7:16; 10:26; 23:25; Deut
10:12; Josh 24:15; 1 Sam 12:24; 2 Chr 12:8.
Ziony Zevit, “The Use of dbe(e as a Diplomatic Term in Jeremiah,” JBL 88 (1969)
14

74–77; c.f. Rannfrid I. Thelle, “Jeremiah MT: Reflections of a Discourse on Proph-

ecy in the Persian Period,” in The Production of Prophecy: Construing Prophecy
and Prophets in Yehud (ed. Diana Vickander Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi; Lon-
don/Oakville, Conn.: Equinox, 2009) 184–207, here 188.
15
A number of scholars argue Amos 3:7 is a later insertion in the book. See below for
discussion.
36 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

only found in Isaiah 40–55, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.16 This title for Israel always
occurs in the context of Israel in exile. The few references to Israel’s leaders,
with the focus on David and Moses as ideal leaders, is in line with narrative
texts, in which both Moses and David are portrayed as paradigms for leader-
ship. The phrase My)ybnh K\w\ydb( (“my/his/your servants the prophets”)
always refers to earlier prophets, except for Amos 3:7.

db( U SED TO D ESIGNATE I SRAEL

As just noted, the use of db( for Israel in prophetic texts is confined to con-
texts of Israel in exile. The term is mostly used when a restored relationship
with Yhwh, along with the ending of the exile, is promised (Isa 41:8–9; 44:1–
2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; Jer 30:10; 46:27–28; 30:9; Ezek 20:40).17
Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea,
Declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it,
Send it forth to the end of the earth;
Say, “The LORD has redeemed his servant (wdb() Jacob!”
(Isa 48:20)18
For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of Israel, says
the Lord GOD, there all the house of Israel, all of them, shall
serve me (yndb(y) in the land; there I will accept them …
(Ezek 20:40)
Twice the phrase is used for Israel in the context of criticism of the nation.
In Isa 42:19, Israel (implied) is criticised for being blind and deaf and, in
43:10, Israel is a witness of God’s former actions toward them. This is in keep-
ing with a motif in Isaiah 40–55 that the nation needs to believe God that the
exile will end (e.g. 45:9–14; 46:8–13).
Generally, db( is a term connected with hope. The demoralised nation in
exile is contrasted with God’s intense concern for them (e.g. Isa 42:18–43:7;
45:9–14; 46:8–13; Jer 30:10). This is also assisted by verbs in Isaiah 40–55
that accompany the “servant” language, such as “chosen” (rxb; Isa 41:8;
43:10; 44:1–2; 45:4), “called” ()rq; Isa 41:9) and “made/formed” (rcy; Isa
44:2, 21).19 These verbs create difficulties for ascertaining the metaphorical as-

16
The consensus of scholarship is that Isaiah 40–55 was composed in the late exile.
Even those who defend the book of Isaiah as a unified composition in the eighth
century (e.g. J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah [Leicester: IVP, 1993] 25–30;
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1986] 23–28), recognise that Chs 40–55 focus on Israel in exile and give the
promise the exile will end.
17
Cf. TDOT 10 396.
18
Biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
19
These verbs also appear in connection with Israel in Isa 43:1; 44:24 (rcy); and 43:1;
48:12 ()rq).
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 37

sociations in the use of db( because it is possible to understand db( on a

number of levels.
First, the terms rxb and )rq suggest a special role for the nation as
Yhwh’s db(. This is specified to be as a messenger (K)lm in Isa 42:19) and
a witness (d( in Isa 43:10). This role may evoke an image from the court,
since in biblical narrative kings frequently use messengers. Furthermore,
“king” is the most frequent image for God in the Hebrew Bible.20 Other peo-
ple, however, also send messengers (e.g. Gen 24; 32:4[3], 7[6]; 1 Sam 25:5–
14, 40–42 [r(n, K)lm, and db( are used]; 2 Sam 17:17 [hxp#]; 2 Kgs 9:4
[r(n]). Therefore, Israel as God’s K)lm is not necessarily an image that
comes from the court. Ultimately, a messenger does work for the sender, thus
the metaphoric use of db( for Israel as God’s K)lm evokes the association of
slavery, “work.”
Second, the term rcy evokes the idea that whoever makes something owns
or controls it. That is, it connotes possession, which is an association of slav-
ery.21 In Isaiah 40–55, however, “possession” of Israel by Yhwh is for a posi-
tive purpose: Israel is precious to, and honoured by, Yhwh (e.g. 43:4). This
constitutes the clearest allusion so far in this discussion of metaphoricity in the
use of db( for Israel: Yhwh will protect Israel (that is, restore the nation).
This is analogous to typical human behaviour concerning what is owned:
one will protect it and seek recompense if it is damaged or stolen (cf. Exod
21:26–15).
A further pointer to the metaphorical impact of db( is the differentiation
between the use of “Jacob” and “Israel” in Isaiah 40–55, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
“Jacob” draws attention to that patriarch who fathered the twelve tribes,
whereas “Israel” is the term used for the present nation. Despite Yhwh’s con-
cern, the nation is described as unresponsive (noted above, see Isa 42:18–20;
64:8–13) and causing shame to Yhwh (Ezek 36:20–21, 32). Jacob’s db( rela-
tionship with Yhwh is not dwelt on, but other texts indicate that the patriarchs
as a group were loyal to Yhwh as his Mydb( (Deut 9:27 and Ps 105:6, 42).
Despite their faults, they are viewed as faithful worshippers of, and obedient
to, God. Further, Deut 9:27 contrasts the nation of Israel with the patriarchs.
This adds to the implication found in Isaiah 40–55, Jeremiah and Ezekiel that
the nation of Israel as God’s db( was supposed to be loyal. Thus, the meta-
phorical use of db( for the nation evokes the derived association from slav-
ery, “loyalty.”
The use of db( for Israel as a nation in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah 40–55
thus draws on the associations of slavery, “work” and “possession,” along with
“loyalty.” These three associations, in the context of hope for the exiled nation,

20
Marc Z. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTSup 76;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).
21
Bridge, “Metaphoric use” (forthcoming).
38 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

show that it is a term of status. Israel, as Yhwh’s db(, is God’s “possession,”

restored to its land and relationship with its Maker. One can go further. In
Isaiah 40–55, Yhwh is presented as the creator of the heavens and the earth
and more powerful than all other deities. By association, Israel, as Yhwh’s
db(, will be the most honourable nation of the earth because it is Yhwh’s pos-
session and messenger/witness. Yet, like a slave, Israel also has to “work” for
Yhwh as Yhwh’s witness and messenger to the nations. Further, it has to be
loyal to Yhwh, as clearly expressed in Jer 30:9 and Ezek 20:40.

db( U SED TO D ESIGNATE I SRAEL’ S L EADERS

The second context of the use of db( in prophetic literature is that of Israel’s
leadership. From the list above, there are only a few references, but Moses and
David are prominent. This matches the use of db( in relation to Israel’s lead-
ership in narrative texts,22 and the use of db( for individuals in Psalms.23
As is the case when db( is used to designate Israel, the references to David
and Moses in prophetic texts occur only in exilic and post-exilic texts. This can
be explained by the permanent loss of the monarchy from the exile onwards,
which resulted in the Israelites looking to heroic leaders of the past for inspira-
tion. Such leaders became idealised models for a future leadership free of for-
eign domination.24 Zerubbabel in Hag 2:23 is not explicitly connected with the
ideal Davidic ruler, but that he is called ydb( (“my servant”) by Yhwh, as
well as “chosen” (rxb), suggests that Haggai understands him as an inde-
pendent ruler of the returned exiles. This understanding is helped by Zerubba-
bel being a descendant of David (compare 1 Chr 3:17 with Ezra 3:2 and Hag
2:23).25 Isa 22:15–25 does not give any reason why Eliakim is chosen over
Shebna, except that Shebna is denounced for having built an ostentatious tomb.
Here, Eliakim, as God’s db(, is to fulfil the role of a high official: a form of
service for God.
Why designate David and Moses, and future ideal rulers, as God’s Mydb(?
Like the patriarchs, David and Moses are considered to be faithful worshippers
of, and obedient to, God. That is, they are loyal to God. Unlike the patriarchs,
however, they are leaders of a clearly defined people or nation. Their leader-
ship can be viewed as a form of “work” for God—an association of slavery.

22
For Moses: Num 12:7; Deut 34:5; Josh 1; 1 Kgs 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 21:8; Neh
1:7–8; 9:14; 10:30[29]. For David: 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5 // 1 Chr 17:4; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24,
66; 11:13, 32–34; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34 // Isa 37:35; 2 Kgs 20:6. For Joshua: Josh
24:29; Judg 2:8. For Hezekiah: 2 Chr 31:20–21.
23
Pss 18:1 [title]; 36:1 [title]; 78:70; 89:4[3], 21[20], 40[39]; 105:26; 132:10.
24
See, e.g. TDOT 10 394–95.
It is acknowledged that Zerubbabel’s designation as Yhwh’s db( and ‘signet ring’
25

(Mtwx) in Hag 2:23 is debated, along with whether Haggai was in effect promoting
rebellion against Persian rule.
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 39

One aspect of David’s “work” for God is his defeat of Israel’s enemies.
Zimmerli argues that defeating enemies is the “special duty” of the king, citing
2 Sam 3:18.26 Thus an association of slavery evoked by David, Hezekiah and
Zerubbabel as Mydb( of God is “work.” David defeating enemies and estab-
lishing a mini empire (2 Sam 8–10 // 1 Chr 18–20) suits Zimmerli’s hypothe-
sis, as does Jehoshaphat’s successes in battle (2 Chr 19), but defeating enemies
is not the “work” for which other “good” kings are noted. Rather, it is their pi-
ety to God. This is the key “work” David performed, shown by his establish-
ment of the worship of Yhwh in Jerusalem. David’s piety is also emphasised in
1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles in that all later kings of Judah are compared
with him on the matter of their adherence to, and promotion of, the worship of
Yhwh.27 Yet, of these kings, only Hezekiah has db( applied to him in relation
to God (2 Chr 31:20–21). Why this occurs is difficult to comprehend.28 Other
kings are also portrayed very positively in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles in
regard to their piety toward Yhwh, especially Josiah, yet db( is not used of
them. 2 Kgs 20:12–19, 2 Chr 32:31 and Isaiah 28–35 (usually accepted as hav-
ing been spoken during Hezekiah’s reign) show criticism of Hezekiah’s poli-
cies. Furthermore, the devastation as a result of Assyria’s invasion of Judah
and near capture of Jerusalem is glossed over in 2 Kings and even more so in 2
Chronicles.29 For some reason, both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles portray Heze-
kiah more positively than appears to be warranted. But, like Israel as a nation,
there is status derived from being a db( of God. That David is used as the
standard for the piety of later kings presupposes this. As is well known, this
matches the common ancient Near Eastern ideology of the king being installed
by a deity or deities and being a “servant” to the deity or deities. But as a ser-
vant of a deity, ancient Near Eastern kings also had to be fair to their people.30
Moses’ status as db( to God is similar to that of David: his leadership is
“work” on behalf of God, and his piety represents “loyalty” to God.31 These

26
Zimmerli and Jeremias, Servant of God 22.
27
This is not to deny the mixed portrayal of David in 1–2 Samuel, a matter of exten-
sive discussion.
At the least, hwhy db( “does not represent a characteristic royal epithet” (TDOT 10
28

395).
29
See, e.g. Nadav Na’aman (“The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign
Powers,” JSOT 65 [1995] 37–53, here 51–52) who focuses on 2 Kings. 2 Chr 32:27–
29 portrays Hezekiah as very wealthy—something that would be difficult maintain
after Sennacherib’s invasion.
30
W. G. Lambert, “Kingship” 57 (Sumer), 60 (Ur III), 65 (neo-Babylonia), 69–70 (As-
syria); J. Day, “Canaanite Inheritance” 86–87 (Canaanite); and Weinfeld, “King as
Servant” 193 (Assyria). See also Whitelam, The Just King; and Job Y. Jindo, “To-
ward a Poetics of the Biblical Mind: Language, Culture, and Cognition,” VT 59
(2009) 222–43, here 238.
31
Cf. Peterson, David L., “The Ambiguous Role of Moses as Prophet,” in Israel’s
Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Propehtic Texts and Isra-
elite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (ed. B. E. Kelle and M. B. Moore; New
40 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

associations from slavery are only played upon in Num 12:7. Here, Moses is
described by God as a household manager or a head servant/slave. Despite
“king” being the favourite image for God in the Hebrew Bible, Num 12:7 is
one of the few times when God is portrayed as the head of a household. db(
maps directly to this, since domestic slavery is the most prevalent form of
slavery in the Bible and the ancient Near East.32 However, as with the use of
db( for Israel and David, db( in Num 12:7 is a term of status, deriving from
Moses’ close relationship with God, which in Num 12:6–8 is said to be unique.
That is, Moses’ status derives from both his role as God’s head db( and his
close relationship with God.
That David and Moses as “servants” of God only appear in exilic and post-
exilic prophetic texts raises a historical-critical matter. Since the final compila-
tion of Joshua–2 Kings occurred at the earliest in the exile (see 2 Kgs 25:27–
30), it is possible that David and Moses’ designation as hwhy db( is an editor
or compiler’s term rather than a designation of the two leaders from earlier
times. In other words, there may be theological or ideological views being ex-
pressed by such a designation. This phenomenon matches the use of db( for
prophets, which (with the exception of Amos 3:7) is only found in exilic and
post-exilic prophetic texts. This will be discussed below. Moses is also desig-
nated as a prophet in Deut 18:18 and 34:10.

db( U SED TO D ESIGNATE P ROPHETS

The third major use of db( in prophetic literature is for prophets. All occur-
rences, except for Isa 20:3, refer to prophets in the plural. The form used is
My)ybnh ydb(\ydb( (“my/his servants the prophets”: Isa 44:26 [implied];33
Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Ezek 38:17; Dan 9:6; Amos 3:7; Zech
1:6). In contrast, 1–2 Kings has individual prophets referred to as “my/your/his
servant”:
Ahijah: 1 Kgs 14:18; 15:29.
Elijah: 1 Kgs 18:36; 2 Kgs 9:36; 10:10.
Jonah: 2 Kgs 14:25.

York/London: T&T Clark, 2006) 311–24, who argues Moses’ main role in Israel’s
history was to promulgate Torah, thus arguing against Moses being a paradigm
prophet.
32
I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1949) 121–22; D. C. Snell, Life in the Ancient Near East 3100–332 B.C.E.
(New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1997) 45, 70, 103, 123 (ancient Near
East); and D. E. Callender, “Servants of God(s) and Servants of Kings in Israel and
the Ancient Near East,” Semeia 83/84 (1998) 67–83, here 74.
db( in the first cola of 44:26a is the singular wdb(, whereas the parallel in the sec-
33

ond cola is the plural wyk)lm, (‘his messengers’). wyk)lm clearly refers to proph-
ets as a group. Has a singular prophet been singled out with wdb(, or is it a
reference to the Suffering Servant?
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 41

However, the plural My)ybnh wydb(\ydb( also appears in 2 Kgs 9:7;

17:13, 23; 21:10 and 24:2.
Some patterns of use are immediately visible. As already noted, the use of
My)ybnh wydb(\ydb( is found in exilic or post-exilic prophetic texts, except
for Amos 3:7. The references to prophets as a group in 1–2 Kings are confined
to 2 Kings and cover prophets from the ninth to early sixth centuries BCE. In
contrast, the singular wdb(\ydb( is applied to named prophets of the tenth to
eighth centuries BCE.34 This pattern will be discussed later. The main question
is, however, what does the use of My)ybnh wydb(\ydb( and wdb(\ydb( for
prophets convey?
In comparison to the portrayal of Moses, David and Israel, prophets are rep-
resented almost as slave-like. In both Joshua–2 Kings and prose sections of
prophetic books, prophets are at times portrayed, when speaking on God’s be-
half, as being subject to God’s bidding 1) as to when, where and to whom they
should speak,35 2) in the performing of symbolic actions,36 3) in matters relat-
ing to their marriage.37 Thus it can be claimed that:
“A true prophet and a true ‘ebed YHWH does everything at
the bidding of his God,”38 and,
“From the moment he answered Yahweh’s call, the classical
prophet ceased to be a free man. He was now in bondage to
the divine word. He must go where he was sent and say what
he was commanded to say.”39
In other words, prophets appear to be little more than slaves. Their oracles
equate to doing messenger work on behalf of their master or mistress (cf. Gen
24; 2 Sam 17:17; Prov 9:3), drawing upon the association of slavery, “work.”
God’s directing of them evokes the association “control.” Outside the pro-
phetic books, the association “possession” is also called into play occasionally.
In 2 Kgs 9:7, God promises to avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the
prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the LORD. In effect, God acts as a
slave master would by seeking restitution or retribution for the loss of property.
However, a number of texts indicate that prophets had freedom in what they
said. For example, Jeremiah 19 and 28:12–16 show that what Jeremiah said,
differs from what God instructed him to say. This forms a “tension” in the

34
Isa 20:3 is also the same.
35
E.g. 2 Sam 12; 1 Kgs 18:1, 12, 36; Isa 7:3–9; Jer 11:1–8; 18–19; 22:1–2; 26–27;
Hag 2:1–2, 10–11, 20–21.
36
E.g. Isa 20; Jer 13; 19; 27–29; Ezek 4–6; 12; 24:15–24.
37
Hos 1:2–9; 3:1–3; Isa 8:1–3; Jer 16:2
38
TDOT 10 395.
39
Arthur, David, A Smooth Stone: Biblical Prophecy in Historical Perspective
(Lanham: University Press of America, 2001) 104.
42 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

metaphoric associations of slavery and is an indication that not all the associa-
tions of slavery are present on every occasion.
Despite prophets as Mydb( of Yhwh evoking associations of slavery, there
is one aspect of the usage of the term that is the same as when it is used for
Moses, the king and the nation of Israel: they are in a close relationship with
God and derive status from that relationship.40 This, on the surface, does not
seem to fit the facts, as many biblical prophets were persecuted and a number
faced death threats or were killed (e.g. 1 Kgs 18:13; 19:2; 2 Kgs 6:32; 2 Chr
24:20–21; Jer 26; 38:25–27; Amos 7:10–13). The difficulties faced by the
prophets prompt scholars to argue that they were generally not respected.41
On the basis of Amos 7:14, there is a persuasive view that pre-exilic proph-
ets did not like to designate themselves as )ybn, as the word was reserved for
“bad” prophets,42 though for their speaking they accepted the verb )bn (“to
prophesy”).43 Because of the generally bad reception of the pre-exilic prophets,
there is now a body of scholarship that argues that )ybn, and especially
My)ybnh wydb(\ydb(, are editors’ terms in the Deuteronomistic history, bor-
rowed from their use in Jeremiah, post-exilic prophetic texts and Deut 18:15–
18 and 34:10, and used to make the pre-exilic prophets appear to be successors
to the tradition of Moses and Samuel.44 Auld and Carroll argue further that
)ybn and My)ybnh wydb(\ydb( are terms introduced into both the Deuter-

40
Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1996) 118; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (SIBT 43; London:
SCM, 1965) 25.
41
E.g. E. Ben Zvi, “‘The Prophets’—References to Generic Prophets and their Role in
the Construction of the Image of the ‘Prophets of Old’ within the Postmonarchic
Readerships/s of the Book of the Kings,” ZAW 116 (2004) 555–67.
42
See, e.g. A. Graeme Auld, “Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings
and Moses,” JSOT 27 (1983) 3–23; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Re-
ligious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Lou-
isville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 127–29; Meindert Dijkstra, “‘I Am Neither a
Prophet nor a Prophet’s Pupil’: Amos 7:9–7 as the Presentation of a Prophet like
Moses,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary
Character and Anonymous Artist (ed. J. C. de Moor; OTS 45; Leiden: Brill, 2001)
105–28, here 121–28.
)bn is found only in the Niphal and Hitpael stems. The latter is found mostly in
43

group contexts, though its reflexive sense is apparent in Jer 29:26–27.

44
Blenkinsopp, Sage 127–28; Dijkstra, “Neither” 121–28’; Overholt, Channels. This
idea goes back to G. von Rad (Studies in Deuteronomy [SBT 9; London: SCM,
1953] 83), and is affirmed in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 351. Ben Zvi (“The Prophets” 561 n. 13), follow-
ing A. F. Campbell and M. A. O’Brien (Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History:
Origins, Upgrades, Present Text [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000]) rejects that Yhwh’s
My)ybnh Mydb( is a Deuteronomistic phrase, but otherwise accepts that it is post-
exilic.
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 43

onomistic narrative and prophetic texts by yet later editors, with all narratives
about prophets45 being fictitious creations.46
Sifting through the biblical texts to determine what is “early” or “late,” and
what reflects the time that is portrayed in a text and what reflects the editor’s
view or time when the text was compiled/edited is a difficult job at the best of
times. This is shown in the texts used to argue that pre-exilic prophets were
poorly received and eschewed the use of )ybn for themselves, and thus are
supposedly Deuteronomistic or later created narratives. Amos 7:14, for exam-
ple, is frequently said to be a later addition to the book. There is, as a result,
the paradoxical situation that narrative about prophets and the terms )ybn and
My)ybnh wydb(\ydb( are argued to be late additions or creations, yet it is
from such narratives that arguments are made that pre-exilic prophets were re-
jected and that they rejected the use of )ybn for themselves. It is more correct
to recognise that narratives about prophets, despite being considered late in
comparison to their oracles, reveal a complicated picture about the reception of
prophets.47 For example, the Elijah and Elisha narratives show these two
prophets were accepted by many people, rejected by some, and had varied re-
ceptions by King Ahab and his successors. But all hearers are portrayed as ac-
knowledging the authority of the two prophets as Yhwh’s spokesmen. The
same is the case for Jeremiah. Nobles were divided in their response to him
(Jer 36:24–25) as were the people (Jer 26:7–19) and officials (Jer 38:1–13);
priests and court/temple prophets opposed him (Jer 20:1–2; 26:7–9) but the
priest Zephaniah seemed to be sympathetic to him (Jer 29:24–32). King Jehoi-

45
E.g. the Elijah-Elisha narratives; the narrative portions in Jeremiah; Amos 7:10–17
[and 3:7]; and all call narratives.
46
Auld, “Prophets” 3–23; “Prophets Through the Looking Glass: A Response to
Robert Carroll and Hugh Williamson,” JSOT 27 (1983) 41–44; “From King to
Prophet in Samuel and Kings,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical
Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (ed. J. C. de Moor; OtSt 45; Lei-
den: Brill, 2001) 31–44; Robert P. Carroll, “Poets Not Prophets: A Response to
‘Prophets through the Looking-Glass,’” JSOT 27 (1983) 25–31; “Whose Prophet?
Whose History? Whose Social Reality? Troubling the Interpretative Community
Again: Notes Towards a Response to T. W. Overholt’s Critique,” JSOT 48 (1990)
33–49. Auld and Carroll’s arguments are a particular version of what most scholars
recognise about oracles in the Hebrew Bible: narratives about prophets are secon-
dary to the oracles. This is said under the assumption that prophets delivered their
oracles orally, which were then circulated (also orally), and finally committed to
writing. Sometime during the writing process and/or incorporation into the present
books of the Bible, narrative was added. What Auld and Carroll both argue is that
the original oracles were anonymous and assigned to particular (fictitious) individu-
als later. Most scholars accept that the oracles assigned to a named individual
prophet (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc) were delivered by that prophet, even if
later editing has been performed on them.
47
Cf. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the
Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (CBET 26; Leuven:
Peeters, 2000) 232.
44 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

akim opposed him (Jer 36:20–26) but King Zedekiah was sympathetic to him,
though refused to go against his nobles (Jer 38:14–27; c.f. vv. 4–5). Ultimately,
the determination of what texts about the prophets are “early” or “late” comes
down to the following choices: be agnostic/sceptical (e.g. Carroll and Ben
Zvi),48 accept only parts of the prophetic texts as original (e.g. Auld), or accept
that the oracles by and narratives of prophets are original, but have been ad-
justed by Deuteronomistic editors (e.g. Blenkinsopp, Dijkstra and Overholt). If
one of the latter two approaches is accepted, then a decision is needed as to
what criteria are to be used to determine what is original and what is editorial.
However, it is possible that prophets did see themselves as hwhy ydb(. The
use of slave terms to designate religious functionaries as well as worshippers
of a deity has a long history that predates ancient Israel.49 A Hebrew language
seal, dated to the Israelite monarchic period, also designates a certain 7wynqm as
a “servant” of YHWH (hwhy db( wynqml). This seal inscription seems to in-
dicate an official title, and suggests the possibility that staff in the Jerusalem
temple had the cultic title, hwhy ydb(, even though the seal itself is from the
northern kingdom.50 The Bible does not designate temple functionaries as
hwhy ydb(, unless that term in Pss 113:1; 134:1; 135:1 refers to such peo-
ple.51 However, the verbal form of db( is used to describe temple functionar-
ies as “serving” God (Qal infinitive of db() and “doing the work of service”
(hdb(\hdwb().52 The importance of the wynqm seal is that it probably shows
that hwhy ydb( was a title for religious figures in monarchic Israel, thus al-
lowing for the possibility that prophets in the pre-exilic period viewed them-
selves as hwhy ydb( as 1 Kgs 18:36; 2 Kgs 9:7 and Amos 3:7 claim.
To summarise, the prophets speak on God’s behalf, obey God as to when,
where, and to whom they speak, sometimes in how they speak, though there is
freedom at times in the content of their messages. In all this, they are little
more than slaves of, or workers for, God, even if their role is viewed as analo-

48
Ben Zvi, “The Prophets” 5: The nature of writing, especially in literary works means
the actual words of the prophets are unrecoverable. Thus “the socioreligious precon-
ditions of the whole process” need to be studied “instead of the individual personal-
ity of the prophet.”
49
See Bridge, “Loyalty” 370 n. 29.
50
N. Avigad, “The Contribution of Hebrew Seals to an Understanding of Israelite Re-
ligion and Society,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore
Cross (ed. P. D. Miller Jr, P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride; Philadephia: Fortress,
1987) 195–208.
51
Arguments against this interpretation are found in Bridge, “Loyalty” 366, 376 (hwhy
ydb( refers to worshippers); and M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes (AB 17b; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 131 (hwhy ydb(
should be read as “works of Yhwh”).
52
See Num 3:7–8; 4:23–24, 30, 47; 7:5; 8:11, 15, 19, 22; 16:9; 18:6–7, 23 (Qal infini-
tive of db(); and Num 3–4; 7–8; 18; 1 Chr 6:33 [48]; 9:13, 19; 23:24–32; 24:3, 19;
25:6; 26:8; 2 Chr 8:14; 31:2, 16, 21 (referring to Hezekiah’s organising of the tem-
ple staff); 35:2, 15; Neh 10:33 [32]; Ezek 44:14 (hdb(\hdwb().
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 45

gous to that of royal messengers. Yet they are clearly in relationship with God.
Thus db(, applied to prophets, emphasises both their role as spokesperson
and their status, derived from Yhwh’s authority, when speaking on God’s be-
half.

db( U SED TO D ESIGNATE THE “S UFFERING S ERVANT ” IN I SAIAH 40–55

The “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 40–55 has occupied, and continues to oc-
cupy, the attention of scholarship. This figure frequently dominates or is the
high point in studies on the prophets, with most attention placed on the identity
of the figure.53 It is not my intention to enter into the latter debate, but rather to
discuss how he is portrayed.
The portrayal of the Servant generally matches what has been said above
about the prophets. The four key Servant texts (Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–7; 50:4–9;
52:13–53:12) are clear as to the Servant’s role: he is appointed by Yhwh to
speak (49:1; 50:3). The texts also say he fulfils his commission (that is, speaks
on behalf of Yhwh; 49:6; 50:5), yet is persecuted or at least not respected
(49:4, 7; 50:6–9; 53:1–3, 7–9). In effect, he is a messenger-slave who is fully
obedient to Yhwh. As was the case for the prophets, this use of db( for the
Servant maps to slavery as both “possession” and “work.” Like the prophets,
the Servant is also vindicated by Yhwh for his troubles (49:5; 50:7–9; 53:10–
12), but this is presented more clearly than for the former, who, with the ex-
ception of 2 Kgs 9:754 are vindicated only when their prediction comes true.55
This heightens what has been said about prophetic authority—it derives from
the prophets’ spokesperson for God role—but makes the Servant figure more
messenger-like than other prophets.56

53
See the space devoted to ‘servant of the Lord’ and associated bibliography in TDOT
10 376–405, and Zimmerli, Servant of God 11–36. See also Collins, Mantle 165–80;
and Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher (ed.), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53
in Jewish and Christian Sources (trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004). Foundational large scale English studies on the Suffering Servant are H. H.
Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1965) and Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah
(London, Oxford University Press, 1956).
54
Here, Yhwh promises to exact revenge for the murder of prophets by Jezebel (see 1
Kgs 18:4, 13; 19:10, 14).
55
Gene M. Tucker (“Prophetic Speech,” in Interpreting the Prophets [ed. J. L. Mays
and P. J. Achtemeier; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987] 27–40) is at pains to point
out that a key role of prophecy is to predict. Blenkinsopp (Sage 121) accepts this as-
pect of prophecy, but considers it a “secondary function.”
A good parallel is 2 Sam 10:1–5, in which David sends Mydb( to Ammon and they
56

are mistreated. That messengers are inviolable is indicated many times in Hittite,
Amarna and Ugaritic diplomatic letters. Comments are frequently made that mes-
sengers are not to be detained at their destination nor be mistreated in any way.
46 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

The Servant, however, is more than just a messenger for Yhwh. Language
for the ideal Davidic king is applied to him (Isa 42:1–7) and he has a saviour
role (Isa 42:7–8; 49:5–6; 53:4–6, 10–12) that extends to the nations (Isa 42:6;
49:6; 52:15). This portrays the Servant as a king-saviour as well as a spokes-
person for Yhwh. That he has a close relationship with God, in similar fashion
to the prophets, is indicated in Isa 50:4, where he is described as having daily
“briefings” by Yhwh. His vindication from Yhwh also implies a close relation-
ship with Yhwh.
Whoever, or whatever, the Servant represents, this figure is the fullest ex-
pression of the persecuted prophet,57 except for the messianic and king-like
functions. This is in line with the general portrayal of the prophets being
mostly rejected or not heeded, up to the time of the early exile, yet having
status derived from their role as God’s spokespeople. db(, used for the Ser-
vant’s title, evokes the same associations of slavery as for prophets: “posses-
sion,” “work,” but the status idea is heightened, despite his sufferings.

db( U SED TO D ESIGNATE P EOPLE IN G ENERAL

Surprisingly, db( is not used frequently for worshippers of Yhwh.58 It is
found in Isa 54:17; 56:6; and 65:8, 9, 13, 14, 15.59 In Isa 56:6 it refers to for-
eigners who worship Yhwh, but in the other references it indicates a group (or
groups) of worshippers of Yhwh who are Israelites and who are contrasted
with others in Israel who do not worship Yhwh. Some scholars now argue that
the Mydb( in Isaiah 56–66 are followers of the Servant figure in Isaiah 40–55
and are opposed by certain others. Who these certain others are is debated.
Blenkinsopp and Rofé argue that they are the majority of the community
and/or those who do not worship Yhwh.60 Beuken claims that the “servants”
have a mission focus, in keeping with the Servant’s universal mission.61 Berges
argues that the opponents are those in the community who wish to restrict the
“people of God” concept solely to descendents of the exiles who adhere to Ne-

57
Collins, Mantle 165–66, 174. See also Ben Zvi, “‘The Prophets’” 555–67.
58
It is found in Isa 54:17; 56:6; 65:8, 9, 13, 14, 15. See n. 41 above for the matter of
hwhy Mydb( in Pss 113:1; 134:1; 135:1.
See n. 51 above for the matter of hwhy Mydb( in Pss 113:1; 134:1; 135:1.
59
60
Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The ‘Servants of the Lord’ in Third Isaiah: Profile of a Pietis-
tic Group in the Persian Period,” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 7
(1983) 1–23; “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period,” CBQ 52 (1990) 5–20; idem,
History 192; A. Rofé, “Isaiah 66:1–4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed
by Trito-Isaiah,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (ed. A.
Kort and S. Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 205–17. Blenkinsopp,
“‘Servants’” 14–17, argues that only Isa 49:1–7 refers to the Servant figure proper,
with 52:13–53:12 referring to a martyred disciple of that figure.
61
W. A. M. Beuken, “The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah: ‘The Servants of YHWH,’”
JSOT 47 (1990) 67–87.
 BRIDGE: THE USE OF db( IN PROPHETIC LITERATURE 47

hemiah’s reforms.62 In saying this, Berges implies that the apostasy-like lan-
guage used for the opponents of the Mydb( in Isaiah 55–66 is invective rather
than literal language. That is, because other Israelites do not understand
Yhwh’s will in the same way the Mydb( do, they are dismissed by the Mydb(
as being no better than idol worshippers.
The use of db( for a group of Yhwh worshippers is similar to its use for
the patriarchs. That is, they are people loyal to Yhwh. This is shown by the
text’s claim that they worship YHWH and further Yhwh’s will. This use of
db( calls up the association of slavery, “work.”
The unique feature of the use of db( for worshippers of Yhwh is that the
term is applied to a group of individuals, rather than the nation or community
as a whole. This makes the use of db( similar to a major use in the Psalms,
where it is predominately applied to an individual voice,63 though, as is usually
noted, a group always remains in focus. In contrast to when db( indicates Is-
rael, Israel’s leaders, prophets and the Servant figure, no status is inferred. The
use of db( as a title for individuals draws upon the derived association of
slavery, “loyalty”: the group of people so designated are claimed to be dedi-
cated to obeying God, in contrast to their opponents.

C ONCLUSIONS
In contrast to most uses of db( in the Bible (e.g. slavery, in deference64), the
metaphoric use of db( in the prophetic literature is a title of status. This status
is derived from closeness to God and loyalty/obedience to God. Israel as God’s
db( has to be loyal to God and be a witness for God, but the nation’s close re-
lationship with God makes it an honoured nation in the world. David and
Moses as Mydb( of God, are portrayed as loyal and obedient to God in pro-
moting justice65 and the worship of God. Prophets, as Mydb(, are also por-
trayed as loyal and obedient to God. This is expressed by their speaking on
behalf of God, often in difficult circumstances. For them, db( does not auto-
matically confer status in the community, but their spokesperson role presup-
poses God’s authority, which is indicated by the language in their oracles. That
is, they have a status derived from God. But if God is rejected, then they are
too, even though this does not stop them having a sense of authority in their

62
Ulrich Berges, “Who were the Servants? A Comparative Inquiry in the Book of
Isaiah and the Psalms,” in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and
the Prophets (Oudtestamentische Studiën 44; ed. J. C. de Moor; H. F. van Rooy;
Leiden: Brill, 2000) 1–18. Berges builds his argument on Blenkinsopp and Beuken.
63
Bridge, “Loyalty” 366.
64
See Bridge, “Metaphoric use,” “Polite language” 518–34 and “Loyalty” 360–78.
65
For Israelite ideals of the king as just, see Ps 72:12–14; Jer 21:11–12; Deut 17:18–
20; and Whitelam, The Just King 29–36. For how this matches with ancient Near
Eastern ideals of kingship, see n. 30 above.
48 AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 60 (2012)

community. The same is also true for the Servant figure of Isaiah 40–55, but in
a heightened way. This figure is vindicated by God (only in the background for
other prophets), is a universal witness to God (in similar fashion to Israel), and
embodies attributes of the idealised monarchy. Thus the Servant figure merges
the function of prophets, Israel and Israel’s leaders in the one person. The
status that the Servant figure and the prophets have is ultimately after the
event, when their messages are vindicated.
This contrasts with the use of db( in Isaiah 54 and 65 where it denotes
what appears to be a group of Yhwh worshippers who are opposed by others.
There, db( carries no status. However, as when it described David, Moses,
the patriarchs and the prophets, db( is a designation of loyalty and obedience
to Yhwh. These worshippers in Isaiah 54 and 65 will also be vindicated by
Yhwh, in similar fashion to the prophets, making understandable the desire of
some scholars to link the Mydb( of Isaiah 56–66 with the Servant figure of
Isaiah 40–55. The associations of slavery that are evoked in the use of db( in
Isaiah 56 – 66 are “work” and “possession,” as well as the derived association,
“loyalty.”
Ultimately, the uses of db( in the prophetic literature draw upon the asso-
ciations of slavery, “work” and “possession.” “Work” relates to obedience to
Yhwh, implied or stated, and is shown most clearly for the prophets and the
Servant figure of Isaiah 40–55. To be an db( of Yhwh is to worship Yhwh, to
do what Yhwh wants, and to promote the ideals that are associated with wor-
shipping Yhwh. “Possession” relates to the relationship the prophets and the
Servant have with Yhwh: they are subject to Yhwh’s direct commands as to
when, where and to whom they speak. This makes their role more slave-like
than for others designated by db(. However, in all uses of db( in the pro-
phetic books, a close relationship with Yhwh is stated or presupposed for the
person/persons who are designated by db(. This contrasts with its use in
speeches in narrative where it indicates deference, and where its function is to
avoid connotations of intimacy with the hearer/hearer.