06.11. Two Isaiahs, or One?

Chapter 10 Two Isaiahs, or One? The Jewish classification of the “Prophets,” as we have seen, was that of “Former” and “Latter;” but as in our last chapter we ventured to change the designation of the “Former” into that of the “Early Historical Books,” to agree with our modern nomenclature, so in this we shall describe the “Latter” prophets by the more customary division of our time, the “Major and Minor Prophets.” The Major prophets include the first four, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and the Minor all the rest. These first four are called “Major,” however, not because of their greater authority or importance as revelations from God, but because of their greater length. Of these there are only two, the first and the last, Isaiah and Daniel, that have drawn the serious attacks of the critics, and to which it may be necessary for us to give more than cursory reference.

Isaiah who is in some respects the greatest of all the prophets, began to prophesy in the last year of the reign of Uzziah, King of Judah (Isaiah 6:1-13), and continued throughout the reigns of his successors Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1-31). He was, like Daniel, probably a statesman as well as a prophet, for we find him repeatedly speaking and acting in connection with public affairs (see Isaiah 7:1-25; Isaiah 8:1-22 for a conspicuous example). His name means, “Salvation of Jehovah,” and he has commonly been called the Evangelical prophet because his writings deal so much with the Person and Work of the Messiah, the Savior of the world.

He has the distinction, too, of being quoted by Christ and his apostles more than any other of the prophets. His book naturally divides itself into two main portions, part one including the first thirty-nine chapters, and part two the remaining twenty-seven. Part one contains prophetic addresses and warnings of different dates, many of them bearing on the present duty and welfare of the Jewish nation, and some relating to the Gentile nations of the period; but part two differs in being a kind of continuous prophetic discourse of which the starting-point is the Babylonian captivity predicted in the last chapter of part one. The leading theme of part two is the deliverance from this captivity, but no one can read it carefully, especially in the light of other Scriptures, without perceiving that the prophet has in mind a still greater deliverance than that from Babylon, even the one spoken of by all the prophets, when the Messiah shall come “a second time without sin unto salvation,” and God’s kingdom shall be indeed set up upon the earth with Israel at its head. Thus the whole of part two has been called by some the “Rhapsody of Redemption.”

Now, mainly because of this great difference between the two parts of the book, some modern critics have held that the latter part was the work of a later prophet, a second, or “Deutero-Isaiah,” who wrote during the captivity, and to their arguments we must now give some attention. As already intimated, “the main problem lies in the change of place, time and situation which confronts us in Isaiah 40:1-31. The final prophecy of part one is uttered against Sennacherib about 701 B.C., but the opening one of part two seems addressed to the captives in Babylon in the later years of their exile, say 598-550.” But why, we may ask, should not this be so? Is it not customary for prophets to be carried forward in vision even further than that? Moses in Deuteronomy 28:1-68, sweeps the horizon of 3500 years and this second Isaiah, if, for the moment, we shall designate him thus, covers at least 700 years in Isaiah 53:1-12, unless we are prepared to deny its application to the suffering Savior.

There is a great difference in style between the parts, say the critics; but may not the great difference in style be explained by the great difference in subject? Is there any greater difference in the style of the two parts than there is between a literary essay and a state paper of John Milton?

It has been discovered also that there are Chaldaisms in part two, i.e., words or expressions foreign to the Hebrew tongue and indicating an acquaintance with that of Babylon as if the writer must have been living there instead of Judea, but closer investigation of part one reveals their presence there as well as in part two, so that this particular argument becomes a kind of boomerang and proves more than is desired. The mention of the name of Cyrus, King of Persia, some two hundred years before his birth (Isaiah 44:1-28; Isaiah 45:1-25), is used as an argument for a later author of part two, on the ground that it is unlike the usual scope of prophecy to do this. But there is a precedent for that in the case of Josiah (1 Kings 13:2), who is named 300 years before he saw the light of day. Jehovah said he knew and aided Jeremiah before his conception (Jeremiah 1:1-19), and why not Cyrus? The whole question, indeed, resolves itself into what we may understand by the words “prophet” and “prophecy” and how much latitude we shall permit the source of inspiration in the exercise of that power. Nor is this last remark an attempt to ridicule the critics as if they were not of the same mind with us in regard to it. They would admit as readily as we, where they admit the supernatural at all, that God is able to reveal anything he wills to reveal and that the question of its character or its period of fulfillment is not before us. But does God will to reveal this or that is the question? Did he reveal the name of Cyrus to is 200 years before his birth, or did a second and later Isaiah write these things about him after the event? All the arguments already presented are in favor of the generally accepted view, but there is yet one which is still stronger; one which throws divine light upon the very meaning and purpose of prophecy itself.

I refer to the appeals which God himself makes to the fulfillments of his earlier declarations as a proof of his claim to know the end from the beginning. Should one desire to look into this more particularly I would recommend to him Professor Margoliouth’s, Lines of Defense of the Biblical Revelation, but in the meantime let him examine and compare for himself in this book of Isaiah 41:21-26; Isaiah 43:9-13; Isaiah 44:7-8; Isaiah 45:19-21; Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 47:3-8.

It will be seen that in all these places God is challenging his enemies as to himself by the truth of the predictions to which he has given utterance by the prophets. But as another truly says, if these predictions were simply “prophecies after the event,” his challenge fails. The application to the case of Cyrus and its bearing on the question of two Isaiahs, therefore, is very plain. God is in the habit, if one may so say, of predicting things before they come to pass in order that their fulfillment may prove his existence, his truthfulness and power. Why, then, should not He have spoken these things about Cyrus in such a manner, and why should anyone feel necessitated to take up the position of the critics to the contrary? There is still more, indeed, to be said upon this subject, but we will reserve it for another chapter.