CHAPTER 12
ONE ISAIAH
BY
PROFESSOR GEORGE L. ROBINSON, D. D.,
McCORMICK
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
“For about twenty-five centuries no
one dreamt of doubting that Isaiah the son of Amoz was the author of every part
of the book that goes under his name; and those who still maintain the unity of
authorship are accustomed to point, with satisfaction, to the unanimity of the
Christian Church on the matter, till a few German
scholars arose, about a century ago,
and called in question the unity of this book.” Thus wrote the late Dr. A. B.
Davidson, Professor of Hebrew in New College, Edinburgh, (Old Testament
Prophecy, p. 244, 1903).
THE
HISTORY OF CRITICISM
The critical disintegration of the
Book of Isaiah began with Koppe, who in 1780 first doubted the genuineness of
chapter 50. Nine years later Doederlein suspected the whole of chapters 40-66.
He was followed by Rosenmueller, who was the first to deny to Isaiah the
prophecy against Babylon in chapters 13:1-14:23. Eichhorn, at the beginning of
the last century, further eliminated the oracle against Tyre in chapter 23,
and, with Gesenius and Ewald, also denied the Isaianic origin of chapters
24-27. Gesenius also ascribed to some unknown prophet chapters 15 and 16.
Rosenmueller went further, and pronounced against chapters 34 and 35;
and not long afterwards (1840),
Ewald questioned chapters 12 and 33.
Thus by the middle of the nineteenth
century some thirty-seven or thirty eight chapters were rejected as no part of
Isaiah’s actual writings. In 1879-80, the celebrated Leipzig professor, Franz
Delitzsch, who for years previous had defended the genuineness of the entire
book, finally yielded to the modern critical position, and in the new edition
of his commentary published in 1889, interpreted chapters 40-66, though with
considerable hesitation, as coming from the close of the period of Babylonian
exile. About the same time (1888-90), Canon Driver and Dr. George Adam Smith
gave popular impetus to similar views in Great Britain.
Since 1890, the criticism of Isaiah
has been even more trenchant and microscopic than before. Duhm, Stade, Guthe,
Hackmann, Cornill and Marti on the Continent, and Cheyne, Whitehouse, Box,
Glazebrook, Kennett and others in Great Britain and America, have questioned
portions which hitherto were supposed to be genuine.
THE
DISINTEGRATION OF “DEUTERO-ISAIAH”
Even the unity of chapters 40-66,
which were supposed to be the work of the Second, or “Deutero-Isaiah,” is given
up. What prior to 1890 was supposed to be the unique product of some celebrated
but anonymous sage who lived in Babylonia (about 550 B.C.), is now commonly
divided and subdivided and in large part distributed among various writers from
Cyrus to Simon.
At first it was thought sufficient
to separate chapters 63-66 as a later addition to “Deutero-Isaiah’s”
prophecies; but more recently it has become the fashion to distinguish between
chapters 40-55, which are alleged to have been written in Babylonia about
549-538 B.C., and chapters 56-66, which are now claimed to have been composed
about 460-445 B.C. Some carry disintegration farther even than this, especially
in the case of chapters 56-66, which are subdivided into various fragments and
said to be the product of a school of writers rather than of a single pen.
Opinions also. conflict as to the place of their composition, whether in
Babylonia, Palestine, Phoenicia, or Egypt.
RECENT
VIEWS
Among the latest to investigate the
problem is the Revelation Robert H. Kennett, D. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Fellow of
Queen’s College, Cambridge, whose Schweich Lectures (1909) have recently been
published for the British Academy by the Oxford University Press, 1910. The
volume is entitled, “The Composition of the Book of Isaiah in the Light of
History and Archaeology”, and is a professed “attempt to tell in a simple way
the story of the book of Isaiah.” The results of his investigations he sums up
as follows (pp. 84-85):
(1)
All of
chapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 31, and portions of chapters 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 22 and 23, may be assigned to
Isaiah the son of Amoz.
(2)
All of
chapters 13, 40 and 47, and portions of chapters 14, 21, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and
48, may be assigned to the time of Cyrus.
(3)
All of
chapters 15, 36, 37 and 39, and portions of chapters 16 and 38, may be assigned
to the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great, but cannot be
dated precisely.
(4)
Chapter
23:1-14 may be assigned to the time of Alexander the Great (332 B.C.).
(5)
All of
chapters 11, 12, 19, 24-27, 29, 30, 32-35, 42, 49-66, and portions of chapters
1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 41, 44, 45 and 48, may be assigned to the
second century B.C. Dr,. Kennett thus assigns more than one-half of the book of
Isaiah to the Maccabean Age.
Prof. C. F. Kent, also, in his
“Sermons, Epistles and Apocalypses of Israel’s Prophets,” 1910, makes the
following noteworthy observations on the prophecies of the so-called
“Deutero-Isaiah.” He says: “The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah ... afford
by far the best approach for the study of the difficult problems presented by
Isaiah 40-66 ... Chapters 56-66 are generally recognized as post-exilic. In
Isaiah 56 and the following chapters there are repeated references to the
temple and its service, indicating that it had already been restored. Moreover,
these references are not confined to the latter part of the book ... The fact,
on the one hand, that there are few, if any, allusions to contemporary events
in these chapters, and, on the other hand, that little or nothing is known of
the condition and hopes of the Jews during this period (the closing years of
the Babylonian exile) makes the dating of these prophecies possible although
far from certain ... Also the assumption that the author of these chapters
lived in the Babylonian exile is not supported by a close examination of the
prophecies themselves. Possibly their author was one of the few who, like
Zerubbabel, had been born in Babylon and later returned to Palestine. He was
also dealing with such broad and universal problems that he gives few
indications of his date and place of abode; but all the evidence that is found
points to Jerusalem as the place where he lived and wrote
“…The
prophet’s interest and point of view center throughout in Jerusalem, and he
shows himself far more familiar with conditions in Palestine than in distant
Babylon. Most of his illustrations are drawn from the agricultural life of
Palestine. His vocabulary is also that of a man dwelling in Palestine, and in
this respect is in marked contrast with the synonyms employed by Ezekiel, the
prophet of the Babylonian exile” (pp. 27,28).
That is to say, the two most recent
investigators of the Book of Isaiah reach conclusions quite at variance with
the opinions advocated in 1890, when Delitzsch so reluctantly allowed that
chapters 40-66 may have sprung from the period of Babylonian exile. These last
twenty-seven chapters are now found to have been written most probably in
Palestine rather than in Babylonia, and are no longer claimed to speak
primarily to the suffering exiles in captivity as was formerly supposed.
THE
PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
The present state of the Isaiah
question is, to say the least, complex, if not chaotic. Those who deny the
integrity of the book may be divided into two groups which we may call
moderates and radicals. Among the moderates
may be included Drs. Driver, G. A. Smith, Skinner, Kirkpatrick, Koenig,
A. B. Davidson and Whitehouse. These all practically agree that the following
chapters and verses are not Isaiah’s: 11:10-16; 12:1-6; 13:1- 14:23;
15:1-16:12; 21:1-10; 24-27; 34-66. That is to say, some forty-four chapters out
of the whole number, sixty-six, were not written by Isaiah; or, approximately
800 out of 1,292 verses are not genuine.
Among the radicals are Drs. Cheyne,
Duhm, Hackmann, Guthe, Marti and Kennett. These all reject approximately 1,030
verses out of the total 1,292, retaining the following only as the genuine
product of Isaiah and his age: 1:2-26,29-31; 2:6-19; 3:1,5,8,9,12-17,24; 4:1;
5:1-14,17-29; 6:1-13; 7:1- 8:22; 9:8-10:9; 10:13,14,27-32; 14:24-32; 17:1-14;
18:1-6; 20:1-6; 22:1- 22; 28:1-4,7-22; 29:1-6,9,10,13-15; 30:1-17; 31:1-4. That
is, only about 262 verses out of the total, 1,292, are allowed to be genuine.
This is, we believe, a fair
statement of the Isaiah question as it exists today. On the other hand, there
are those who still defend the unity of Isaiah’s book, e.g., Strachey (1874),
Naegelsbach (1877), Bredenkamp (1887), Douglas (1895), W. H. Cobb (1883-1908),
W. H. Green (1892), Vos (1898-99), Thirtle (1907) and Margoliouth (1910).
(Compare also the writer’s “The Book of Isaiah,” Y. M. C. A. Press, N.Y., 1910)
THE PRIME
REASON FOR DISSECTING ISAIAH
The fundamental axiom of criticism
is the dictum that a prophet always spoke out of a definite historical
situation to the present needs of the people among whom he lived, and that a
definite historical situation shall be pointed out for each prophecy. This
fundamental postulate underlies all modern criticism of Old Testament prophecy.
This principle on the whole is
sound, but it can easily be overworked. Certain cautions are necessary, for
example:
(1)
It is
impossible to trace each separate section of prophecy, independently of its
context, to a definite historical situation. Besides, the prophets often speak
in poetry, and poetry ought not as a rule to be taken literally.
(2)
It is
not necessarily the greatest event in a nation’s history or the event about
which, we happen to know the most, that may actually have given birth, humanly
speaking, to a particular prophecy. Israel’s history is full of crises and
events, any one of which may easily be claimed to furnish an appropriate, or at
least a possible, background for a given prophecy.
(3)
The
prophets usually spoke directly to the needs of their own generation, but they
spoke also to the generations yet to come. Isaiah, for example, commanded,
“Bind thou up the testimony, seal the law among My disciples” (Isaiah 8:16);
that is, preserve My teachings for the future. Again in Isaiah 30:8, he says,
“Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it
may be for the time to come forever and ever.” And also in Isaiah 42:23, “Who
is there among you that will give ear to this? that will hearken and hear for
the time to come?”
ALLEGED
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST UNITY
Recently certain writers have
appealed to the author of 2 Chronicles to prove that chapters 40-66 existed as
a separate collection in his age. Whitehouse in the New Century Bible
(“Isaiah”, Vol. I, p. 70), says:
“This is clear from 2 Chronicles
36:22 ff, in which the passage Isaiah 44:28 (that Cyrus would cause the temple
to be built) is treated as the word of Jeremiah. The so-called ‘Deutero-Isaiah’
(chs. 40-66) must at that time (c. 300 B.C.) have been regarded as a body of
literature standing quite apart from the Isaianic collection or collections
which then existed.”
But the evidence obtained from this
source is so doubtful that it is well nigh valueless. For it is not the
prediction concerning Cyrus to which the chronicler points as “the word of
Jehovah by the mouth of Jeremiah,” but “the three-score and- ten years” spoken
of in verse 21 of the same context which Jeremiah did predict. Cf. 2 Chronicles
36:21. On the other hand, the order of the prophets among the Jews of antiquity
was (1) Jeremiah, (2) Ezekiel, (3) Isaiah, and (4) The Twelve; accordingly, any
portion of any of these prophecies might be cited as belonging to Jeremiah,
because his book stood first. In any case, to seek for external evidence in
behalf of the dissection of the book is indicative!
THE LITERARY
HISTORY OF THE BOOK
When or how the Book of Isaiah was
edited and brought into its present form is unknown. Jesus ben-Sirach, the
author of Ecclesiasticus, writing c. 180 B.C., cites Isaiah as one of the
notable worthies of Hebrew antiquity, in whose days, “the sun went backward and
he added life to the king” (Ecclus. 48:20-25; cf. Isaiah 38:4-8); and he adds,
who “saw by an excellent spirit that which should come to pass at the last, and
comforted them that mourned in Zion.” Evidently, therefore; at the beginning of
the second century B.C., at the latest, the Book of Isaiah had reached its
present form, and the last twenty-seven chapters were already ascribed to
the son of Amoz.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no
proof that chapters 1-39, or any other considerable section of Isaiah’s
prophecies ever existed by themselves as an independent collection; nor is
there any ground for thinking that the promissory and Messianic portions have
been systematically interpolated by editors long subsequent to Isaiah’s own
time. It is quite arbitrary to suppose that the earlier prophets only
threatened.
CERTAIN
FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS
Certain false presuppositions govern
critics in their disintegration of the Book of Isaiah. Only a few examples need
be given by way of illustration.
(1)
To
one, “the conversion of the heathen” lay quite beyond the horizon of any
eighth-century prophet, and consequently Isaiah 2:2-4 and all similar passages
should be relegated to a subsequent age.
(2)
To
another, “the picture of universal peace” in Isaiah 11:1-9 is a symptom of late
date, and therefore this section. and kindred ones must be deleted.
(3)
To
another, the thought of “universal judgment” upon “the whole earth” in Isaiah
14:26 quite transcends Isaiah’s range of thought.
(4)
To
still another, the apocalyptic character of chapters 24-27 represents a phase
of Hebrew thought which prevailed in Israel only after Ezekiel.
(5)
Even
to those who are considered moderates the poetic character of a passage like
chapter 12 and the references to a return from captivity as in Isaiah 11:11-16,
and the promises and consolations such as are found in chapter 33; are cited as
grounds for assigning these and kindred passages to a much later age. Radicals
deny in toto the existence of Messianic passages among Isaiah’s own
predictions.
But, to deny to Isaiah of the eighth
century all catholicity of grace, all universalism of salvation or judgment,
every highly developed Messianic ideal, every rich note of promise and comfort,
all sublime faith in the sacrosanct character of Zion, as some do, is
unwarrantably to create a new Isaiah of greatly reduced proportions, a mere
preacher of righteousness, a statesman of not very optimistic vein, and the
exponent of a cold ethical religion without the warmth and glow of the messages
which are actually ascribed to the prophet of the eighth century.
THE
WRITER’S PERSONAL ATTITUDE
More and more the writer is
persuaded that the fundamental postulates of much criticism are unsound, and
that broad facts must decide the unity or collective character of Isaiah’s
book. To determine the exact historical background of each individual section
is simply impossible, as the history of criticism plainly shows. Verbal
exegesis may do more harm than good. Greater regard must be paid to the structure
of the book. When treated as an organic whole, the book is a grand masterpiece.
One great purpose dominates the author throughout, which, as he proceeds, is
brought to a climax in a picture of Israel’s redemption and the glorification
of Zion. Failure to recognize this unity incapacitates a man to do it
exegetical justice. The prophecies of the Book of Isaiah simply can not be
properly
understood without some
comprehension of the author’s scheme of thought as a whole. There is an
obvious, though it may be to some extent an editorial, unity to Isaiah’s
prophecies. But there is as true a unity in the Book of Isaiah as is usually
found in a volume of sermons. To regard them as a heterogeneous mass of
miscellaneous prophecies which were written at widely separated times and under
varied circumstances from Isaiah’s own period down to the Maccabean age, and
freely interpolated throughout the intervening centuries, is to lose sight of
the great historic realities and perspective of the prophet. In short the whole
problem of how much or how little Isaiah wrote would become immensely
simplified if critics would only divest themselves of a mass of unwarranted
presuppositions and arbitrary restrictions which fix hard and fast what each
century can think and say.
Accordingly, the writer’s attitude
is that of those who, while welcoming all ascertained results of investigation,
decline to accept any mere conjectures or theories as final conclusions. And
while he acknowledges his very great debt to critics of all latitudes, he
nevertheless believes that the Book of Isaiah, practically as we have it, may
have been, and probably was, all written by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the
latter half of the eighth century B.C.
ARGUMENTS
FOR ONE ISAIAH
It is as unreasonable to expect to
be able to prove the unity of Isaiah as to suppose that it has been disproved. Internal evidence is indecisive in
either case. There are arguments, however, which corroborate a belief that
there was but one Isaiah. Here are some of those which might be mentioned:
The Circle of Ideas is strikingly
the same throughout. For example, take
the name for God which is almost peculiar to the Book of Isaiah, “the Holy One
of Israel”. This title for Jehovah occurs in the Book of Isaiah a total of
twenty-five times and only six times elsewhere in the Old Testament (one of
which is in a parallel passage). It interlocks all the various portions with
one another and stamps them with the personal imprimatur of him who saw the
vision of the majestic God seated upon His throne, high and lifted up, and
heard the angelic choirs singing: “Holy, Holy, Holy is Jehovah of hosts: the
whole earth is full of Thy glory” (Chapter 6). The presence of this Divine name
in all the different sections of the book is of more value in identifying
Isaiah as the author of all these prophecies than though his name had been
inscribed at the beginning of every chapter, for the reason that his theology
is woven into the very fiber and texture of the whole book.
The title occurs twelve times in
chapters 1-39, and thirteen times in chapters 40-66; and it is simply
unscientific to say that the various alleged authors of the disputed portions
all employed the same title through imitation. (Isaiah 1:4; 5:19,24; 10:20;
12:6; 17:7; 29:19; 30:11,12,15; 31:1; 37:23. Also, 41:14,16,20;
43:3,14; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 54:5; 55:5; 60:9,14. Compare 2 Kings 19:22;
Psalm 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; Jeremiah 50:29; 51:5).
Another unique idea which occurs
with considerable repetition in the Book of Isaiah is the thought of a
“highway”. Cf. 11:16; 35:8; 40:3; 43:19; 49:11; 57:14; 62:10.
Another is the idea of a “remnant”.
Cf. 1:9; 6:13; 10:20,21,22; 11:11,12,16; 14:22,30; 15:9; 16:14; 17:3,6; 21:17;
28:5; 37:31; 46:3; 65:8,9.
Another is the position occupied by “Zion”
in the prophet’s thoughts. Cf. 2:3; 4:5; 18:7; 24:23; 27:13; 28:16; 29:8;
30:19; 31:9; 33:5,20; 34:8; 46:13; 49:14; 51:3,11; 52:1; 57:13; 59:20; 60:14;
62:1,11; 65:11,25; 66:8.
Still another is the expression,
“pangs of a woman in travail.” Cf. 13:8; 21:3; 26:17,18; 42:14; 54:1; 66:7.
All these, and many others which are
less distinctive, stamp psychologically the book with an individuality which it
is difficult to account for if it be broken up into various sections and
distributed, as some do, over the centuries.
Literary Style.
As negative evidence, literary style
is not a very safe argument, for as Professor McCurdy says, “In the case of a
writer of Isaiah’s endowments, style is not a sure criterion of authorship”
(“History, Prophecy and the Monuments,” II, p. 317 n.). Yet it is remarkable
that the clause, “for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it”, should be found
three times in the Book of Isaiah, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. Cf.
1:20; 40:5; 58:14.
It is also singular that the Divine
title, “the Mighty One of Israel,” should occur three times in Isaiah and
nowhere else in the Old Testament. Cf. 1:24; 49:26; 60:16.
And it is noteworthy that the
phrase, “streams of water,” should occur twice in Isaiah and nowhere else. Cf.
30:25; 44:4. And most peculiar is the tendency on the part of the author to
emphatic reduplication. Cf. 2:7,8; 6:3; 8:9; 24:16,19; 40:1; 43:11,25; 48:15;
51:12; 57:19; 62:10.
Isaiah’s style differs widely from
that of every other Old Testament prophet and is as far removed as possible
from that of Ezekiel and the post-exilic prophets.
HISTORICAL
REFERENCES.
Take for example, first, the
prophet’s constant reference to Judah and Jerusalem, 1:7-9; 3:8; 5:13; 24:19;
25:2; 40:2,9; 62:4. Also, to the temple and its ritual of worship and
sacrifice. In Isaiah 1:11-15, when all was prosperous, the prophet complained
that the people are profuse and formal in their ceremonies and sacrifices; in
Isaiah 43:23,24, on the contrary, when the country had been overrun by the
Assyrians and Sennacherib had besieged the city, the prophet complains that
they had not brought to Jehovah the sheep of their burnt offerings, nor honored
Him with their sacrifices. In Isaiah 66:1-3,6,20, not only is the existence of
the temple and the observance of the temple ritual presupposed, but those are
sentenced who place their trust in the material temple, and the outward
ceremonials of temple worship.
As for the “exile”, the prophet’s
attitude to it throughout is that of both anticipation and realization. Thus in
Isaiah 57:1, judgment is only
threatened, not yet inflicted: “The
righteous is taken away from the evil to come.” That is to say, the exile is
described as still future. On the other
hand, in chapter 3:8, “Jerusalem is
ruined, and Judah is fallen”; while in chapter 11:11,12, “the Lord will set His
hand again the second time to recover the remnant ... from the four corners of
the earth.” To interpret such statements literally without regard to Isaiah’s
manifest attitude to the exile, leads only to confusion. No prophet realized so
keenly or described so vividly the destiny of the Hebrews ....
The Predictive Element.
This is the strongest proof of the
unity of the Book of Isaiah. Prediction is the very essence of prophecy. Isaiah
was pre-eminently a prophet of the future. With unparalleled suddenness he
repeatedly leaps from despair to hope, from threat to promise, from the actual
to the ideal. What Kent says of “Deutero-Isaiah” may with equal justice be said
of Isaiah himself: “While in touch with his own age, the great unknown prophet
lives in the atmosphere of the past and the future” (Cf. “Sermons, Epistles and
Apocalypses of Israel’s Prophets”, p. 28). Isaiah spoke to his own age, but he
also addressed himself to the ages to come. His verb tenses are characteristically
futures and prophetic perfects. Of him A. B. Davidson’s words are particularly
true: “If any prophetic book be examined ... it will appear that the ethical
and religious teaching is always secondary, and that the essential thing in the
book or discourse is the prophet’s outlook into the future” (Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible, article, “Prophecy and Prophets”). Isaiah was
exceptionally given to predicting: thus,
(1) Before the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734
B.C.), he predicted that within sixty-five
years Ephraim should be broken in pieces (7:8); and that before the child
Maher-shalal-hash-baz should have knowledge to cry, “My father” or “My mother”,
the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria should be carried away (8:4;
cf. 7:16). There are numerous other predictions among his earlier prophecies.
(Cf. 1:27,28; 2:2-4; 6:13;10:20-23; 11:6-16; 17:14).
(2) Shortly before the downfall of
Samaria in 722 B.C. Isaiah predicted that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy
years, and that after the end of seventy years her merchandise shall be
holiness of Jehovah. (Cf. Isaiah 23:15).
(3) Likewise prior to the siege of
Ashdod in 711 B.C., he proclaimed that within three years Moab should he
brought into contempt (Isaiah 16:14), and that within a year all the glory of
Kedar should fail (Isaiah 21:16).
(4) And not long prior to the siege of
Jerusalem by Sennacherib in 701 B.C., he predicted that in an instant,
suddenly, a multitude of Jerusalem’s foes should be as dust (Isaiah 29:5); that
yet a very little while and Lebanon should be turned into a fruitful field
(Isaiah 29:17); that Assyria should be dismayed and fall by the sword but not
of men (Isaiah 30:17,31; 31:8). Furthermore, that for days beyond a year, the
careless women of Jerusalem should be troubled (Isaiah 32:10,16-20); and that
the righteous in Zion should see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, and return and
come with singing (Isaiah 33:17-24; 35:4,10); but that Sennacherib on the
contrary should hear tidings and return without shooting an arrow into the city
(Isaiah 37:7,26-29,33-35). In like manner after the siege of Jerusalem by
Sennacherib, 701 B.C., the prophet continued to predict; and, in order to
demonstrate, to the suffering remnant about him the deity of Jehovah and the
folly of idolatry, pointed to the predictions which he had already made in the
earlier years of his ministry, and to the fact that they had been fulfilled.
For example, he says:
In Isaiah 41:21-23,26 ff.: “Who hath
declared it from the beginning that we may know, and beforetime that we may
say, He is right?”
In Isaiah 42:9,23: “Behold the
former things are come to pass and new things do I declare; before they spring
forth I tell you of them.”
In Isaiah 43:9,12: “Who among them can declare this and show us
former things? (i.e., things to come in the immediate future). I have declared,
and I
have saved and I have showed.”
In Isaiah 44:7,8,27,28: “Who, as I,
shall call, and shall declare it? ... The things that are coming and that shall
come to pass, let them (the idols) declare. Have not I declared unto thee of
old and showed it? And ye are My witnesses. ... That saith of Cyrus, He is My
shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, she
shall be built; and of the temple, thy foundation shall be laid.”
In Isaiah 45:1-4,11,21: “It is I
Jehovah, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel .... I have called
thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee though thou hast not known Me. ... Ask
of Me the things that are to come. I have raised him (Cyrus) up in righteousness,
and he shall build My city, and he shall let My exiles go free.”
In Isaiah 46:10,11: “Declaring the
end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done;
calling a ravenous bird (Cyrus) from the east, the man of My counsel. ... Yea,
I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass.”
In Isaiah 48:3,5: “I have declared
the former things from of old, ... and I showed them, suddenly I did them, and
they came to pass. ... I have declared it to thee from of old; before it came
to pass I showed it thee; lest thou shouldst say, Mine idol hath done them.”
And again in Isaiah 48:6-8,14-16:
“I have showed thee new things from
this time, even hidden things; ... before this day thou heardest them not, ... yea,
from of old thine ear was not opened, ... Who, among them hath declared these
things? ... I even I have spoken; yea, I have called him; from the beginning I
have not spoken in secret.” To which long list of predictions the prophet adds
by way of lamentation: “Oh, that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments
(including predictions) ! then had thy peace been like a river, and thy
righteousness as the waves of the sea” (Isaiah 48:18).
CYRUS A
SUBJECT OF PREDICTION
From all these numerous explicit and
oft-repeated predictions one thing is obvious, namely, that great emphasis is
laid on prediction throughout the Book of Isaiah. “Cyrus” must be considered as
predicted from any point of view. The only question is, Does the prophet
emphasize the fact that he is himself predicting the coming of Cyrus? or, that
former predictions concerning Cyrus are now in his time coming to pass? Canon
Cheyne’s remark upon this point is apropos. He says: “The editor, who doubtless
held the later Jewish theory of prophecy, may have inferred from a number of
passages, especially Isaiah 41:26; 48:3,6,14, that the first appearance of
Cyrus had been predicted by an ancient prophet, and observing certain Isaianic
elements in the phraseology of these chapters may have identified
the prophet with Isaiah”
(“Introduction to the Book of Isaiah,” p.238). Why not regard “the editor’s”
inference legitimate?
Dr. George Adam Smith likewise
allows that Cyrus is the fulfillment of former predictions. He says: “Nor is it
possible to argue as some have tried to do, that the prophet is predicting
these things as if they had already happened. For as part of an argument for
the unique divinity of the God of Israel, Cyrus, alive and irresistible, and
already accredited with success, is pointed out as the unmistakable proof that
former prophecies of a deliverance for Israel are already coming to pass.
Cyrus, in short, is not presented as a prediction but as a proof that a
prediction is being fulfilled” (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, art.
“Isaiah”, p. 493).
Further, he says: “The chief claim,
therefore, which chapters 40 ff. make for the God of Jehovah is His power to
direct the history of the world in conformity to a long predicted and
faithfully followed purpose. This claim starts from the proof that Jehovah has
long before predicted events now happening or about to happen, with Cyrus as
their center” (Idem, p. 496).
Hence in any case it must be allowed
that Cyrus is the subject of prediction. It really makes little difference at
which end of history one stands, whether in the eighth century B.C. or in the
sixth, Cyrus, to the author of chapters 40-48, is the subject of prediction.
Whether, indeed, he is really predicting Cyrus in advance of all fulfillment,
or whether Cyrus to him is the fulfillment of some ancient prediction does not
alter the fact that Cyrus was the subject of prediction on the part of
somebody. As was stated above, the whole question is, which does the prophet
emphasize,
(1) the fact that he is predicting? or,
(2) that former predictions are now
before his eyes coming to pass?
The truth is, the prophet seems to
live in the atmosphere of both the past and the future. This is true of Isaiah,
who in his inaugural vision (ch. 6) paints a scene which Delitzsch describes as “like a prediction in
the process of being fulfilled”. The same is presumably true of chapters 24-27.
There the prophet repeatedly projects himself into the future, and speaks from
the standpoint of the fulfillment of his prediction. This was an outstanding
characteristic of Isaiah. At one time he emphasizes the fact that he is
predicting, and a little later he seems to emphasize that his predictions are
coming to pass. Accordingly, if a decision must be made as to when Cyrus was
actually predicted, it is obviously necessary to assume that he was predicted
long before his actual appearance. This is in keeping with the Deuteronomic
test of prophecy, which says: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah,
if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath
not spoken; the prophet hath spoken
it presumptuously, thou Shalt not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:22).
There is a similar prediction in the
Old Testament: King Josiah was predicted by name two centuries before he came.
(1 Kings 13:2; cf. 2 Kings 23:15,16).
Dr. W. H. Cobb, in the “Journal of
Biblical Literature and Exegesis”, 1901 (p. 79), pleads for a “shrinkage of
Cyrus”, because Cyrus figures only in chapters 40-48, and is then dismissed.
Dr. Thirtle in his volume entitled, “Old Testament Problems” (pp. 244-264),
argues that the name “Cyrus” is a mere appellative, being originally not Koresh
(Cyrus), but Horesh (workman, artificer, image-breaker), and that chapter
44:27,28 is therefore a gloss. But in opposition to these views the present
writer prefers to write Cyrus large, and to allow frankly that he is the
subject of prediction; for, the very point of the author’s argument is, that he
is predicting events which Jehovah alone is capable of foretelling or bringing
to pass; in other words, that prescience is the proof of Jehovah’s deity.
Isaiah lived in an age when
prediction was needed; cf. Amos 3:9. Political events were kaleidoscopic and
there was every incentive to predict. But Jehovah’s predictions alone were
trustworthy. That Isaiah’s prophecies contain wonderful predictions is attested
both by Jesus ben-Sirach in Ecclus. 48-20-25, which was written about 180 B.C.,
and by Josephus in his “Antiquities” XI, I, 1, 2, dating from about 100 A.D.
Why should men object to prediction
on so large a scale? Unless there is definiteness about any given prediction,
unless it transcends ordinary prognostication there is no especial value in it.
The only possible objection is that prediction of so minute a character is
“abhorrent to reason”. But the answer to such an objection is already at hand;
it may be abhorrent to reason, but it is certainly a handmaid to faith. Faith
has to do with the future even as prediction has to do with the future; and the
Old Testament is pre-eminently a book which encourages faith. The one
outstanding differentiating Characteristic of Israel’s religion is predictive
prophecy. Only the Hebrews ever predicted the coming of the Messiah of the
kingdom of God. Accordingly, to predict the coming of a Cyrus as the human agent
of Israel’s salvation is but the reverse side of the same prophet’s picture of
the Divine agent, the obedient, suffering Servant of Jehovah, who would redeem
Israel from their sin. Deny to Isaiah the son of Amoz the predictions
concerning Cyrus, and the prophecy is robbed of its essential character and
unique perspective; emasculate these latter chapters of Isaiah of their
predictive feature, and they are reduced to a mere vaticinium ex eventu, and
their religious value is largely lost.
Return to the Aisbitt’s Homepage
