ISAIAH ī zā’ ĕ (יְשַֽׁעְיָ֣הוּ, Yahweh is salvation). The first of the major prophets in the Eng. Bible, the first of the latter prophets in the Heb. Bible, the largest and prob. the most universally cherished of the OT prophetical books.
The prophet Isaiah is mentioned repeatedly in 2 Kings and three times in 2 Chronicles. His name appears sixteen times in the book that bears his name. The book is dated in the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. Late tradition asserts that the prophet was martyred in the reign of Manasseh.
Outline
A. Historical background
1. General. These were troublous times in Israel’s history. During this period the northern kingdom fell and was taken captive. The southern kingdom (Judah) was heavily attacked. Isaiah lived to see the menace of Assyria wane, and his faith in God’s promises to Jerusalem fully vindicated.
The period was the era of Assyria’s expansion to the W. In a previous cent., a coalition of kings including Ahab had halted an Assyrian drive in the battle of Qarqar in 854 b.c., but the Assyrians were on the march again. Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 b.c.) invaded the W, conquered the Phoen. coast, and informed the world that he took the tribute of Rezin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, and many other kings. These campaigns are mentioned in 2 Kings 15:19-29, where Tiglath-pileser III is also called Pul—his native name witnessed in Babylonian sources. Apparently, about 732 b.c. Tiglathpileser III conquered much of Galilee and deported the two and a half tribes of that area. He had revived the old Assyrian practice of intermixing the peoples of his empire (2 Kings 17:6, 24).
2. Fall of Samaria. Shalmaneser V (726-722) followed his father, Tiglath-pileser III, and continued his policies. After Pekah, king of the northern kingdom, was murdered as a result of an internal conspiracy, Hoshea became king (731 b.c.) and served as a virtual puppet of Assyria. Shalmaneser came W and received tribute from Hoshea (2 Kings 17:3), but, eventually Hoshea ventured to rebel. Then began the bitter three-year siege of Samaria that destroyed the northern kingdom forever, in 722/1 b.c. The impending doom is recorded in the books of Amos and Hosea who were specifically commissioned as prophets to the northern kingdom, before it fell. Shalmaneser is prob. referred to in Hosea 10:14.
It has been debated whether Shalmaneser V actually conquered Samaria or whether it fell to his general and successor, Sargon II (721-705). The latter claims the conquest but may have exaggerated (see E. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 2nd ed. [1965], pp. 141-147). At all events, the northern kingdom was no more, and Judah lay exposed to the Assyrian menace on both the northern and western flanks. Already Tiglathpileser III had taken Ashkelon. Sargon deported 27,290 people of Samaria and ravaged the Philistine plain. Later he defeated a rebellious coalition of allies including Egyp. troops at the border of Egypt in 711 b.c. Due to Isaiah’s urgent warnings (Isa 20:1-6), Judah had not joined the coalition and was spared Sargon’s wrath.
Sargon ruled from 721-705 b.c. Much of his time was taken up with wars in Asia Minor and the Ararat area and against Babylon.
3. Sennacherib’s invasions of Judah. Sennacherib, Sargon’s son (705-681) invaded Judah, who had on several occasions before paid tribute to Assyria. Tiglath-pileser III claimed tribute from “Azariah of Yaudi” (Judah) and “Jehoahaz (Ahaz) of Judah.” 2 Kings 16:8 mentions tribute paid by Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser III, and it is probable that Sargon also received tribute. Hezekiah gave to Sennacherib 300 talents of silver and thirty talents of gold (2 Kings 18:14). The Philistine area had rebelled with Egyp. help, and bound Padi, the Assyrian puppet, at Ekron and sent him to Hezekiah. Sennacherib overcame the Egyptians and the coalition in the battle of Eltekeh about 701 b.c. He conquered forty-six cities of Judah, took 200,150 captives, resettled Padi in Ekron, and received Hezekiah’s submission. He claimed thirty talents of gold, 800 talents of silver which may be a more inclusive reckoning than 2 Kings 18:14 (or, more likely, a mere exaggeration), and much other plunder. Judah was brought low. Significantly, Sennacherib said he beseiged Jerusalem and Hezekiah “like a caged bird shut up in Jerusalem his royal city,” but does not claim that he conquered the city. The Bible makes clear that Jerusalem was spared.
Sennacherib was murdered and succeeded by his son Esarhaddon (Isa 37:38), who reigned from 681-669. Possibly under his reign Manasseh was detained for a time in Babylon (2 Chron 33:11).
Assyria was the main power in the days of Isaiah, but as the above synopsis suggests, the interplay of world politics brought several other nations on the scene of Judah’s history.
4. The Syro-Ephraimite war. When Tiglathpileser first struck W, the natural reaction of the border states was to form an alliance and halt his advance, as Ahab had done at Qarqar a hundred years earlier. In such an attempt, Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel evidently tried to enlist the cooperation of Ahaz about 733 b.c. When Ahaz refused, they determined to overthrow him and seat their own puppet, the son of Tabeel, on the throne of Judah (Isa 7:1-7). They were not fully successful (2 Kings 16:5) but did much damage (16:6; 2 Chron 28:5-15) and the W was thus further weakened by its internecine struggles.
Such local wars led Ahaz to seek help from Assyria, to open up a second front to the N of Damascus. Assyria gladly responded to Ahaz’ plea. Ahaz thereby brought in the very foreign power that became the scourge of God to Judah’s own near destruction. This Syro-Ephraimite war and Assyrian intrigue is the background of the so-called book of Immanuel (Isa 7-12), where Isaiah bitterly denounces Ahaz’ statecraft. A further consequence of Ahaz’ vassalage to Assyria was the implied requirement that Ahaz must adopt Assyria’s state religion (J. Bright, A History of Israel [1959], pp. 259, 260). Against all the foreign intrigues, Isaiah consistently demanded a policy of nonalignment and full reliance on Yahweh to protect the nation. Isaiah’s counsel prevailed, and it is of some note that Judah was the only kingdom in the area that did not fall to the Assyrian might—not even excepting Egypt.
5. The situation in Egypt. Egypt during this period was weak. The native king of the Delta to the N was Tefnakhte (c. 726-716). He reigned at a city called Saias (spelled Sa-a-a in cuneiform). Apparently Hoshea sent to him for help (2 Kings 17:4). It is now recognized that “So, king of Egypt” is a mistaken tr. for “the king of Egypt at So” (H. Goedicke, “The End of ‘So, King of Egypt’” and W. F. Albright “The Elimination of King So,” BASOR, no. 171 [1963], pp. 64-66).
The Ethiopian kings to the S were on the point of conquering the Delta, and Shabaka of the 25th dynasty succeeded in about 709 b.c., ruling over a unified Egypt until 695. Egypt at this time gave promise of helping to repulse the Assyrian power and there was a powerful pro-Egyp. party at Jerusalem, against which Isaiah inveighed (chs. 18-20, 30, 31). Finally, in 690, Shabaka’s nephew Taharko (Tirhakah, Isa 37:9) came to the throne (he was born about 710) and furnished a diversion for the Assyrians in their attacks on Jerusalem.
6. Babylon. Babylon also was a prominent power of the day. The history of Babylon concerned not only the times of Isaiah, but also the predictions he made concerning the Babylonian captivity. Contrary to the usual picture, Babylon was an international force during Hezekiah’s reign. During the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, Chaldean forces had possessed Babylon for a few years, but the Assyrians had retaken it, and Tiglath-pileser reigned there under the name of Pulu. Marduk-apal-iddina (Merodach-baladan), also a Chaldean, usurped the throne of Babylon in 721 when Sargon was occupied in wars against Samaria, King Midas in Asia Minor (the king of the fabled golden touch), and the peoples of Ararat (Urartu). Merodach-baladan held the throne until 721 when Sargon, returning from his victory at Ashdod, reconquered Babylon for Assyria. Merodach-baladan professed subjection, but in 703 shortly after Sennacherib ascended the throne, he usurped Babylon again. This was the occasion of his envoys to Hezekiah (Isa 39:1-8, though some have associated these messengers with events of the rebellion against Sargon in 711). Hezekiah, against the strong rebuke of Isaiah, entered into the alliance of Egypt (30:1-10), Babylon (39:1-4), and the Philistine area. 2 Kings 18:8 records that Hezekiah conquered Philistia, which agrees well with Sennacherib’s statement that Padi, king of Ekron, who was loyal to the Assyrians, lay bound in Jerusalem until Sennacherib put down the rebellion. Sennacherib’s prism inscr. names Ekron, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Egypt (the Ethiopian dynasty), Hezekiah, and others, in the conspiracy. He first disposed of Merodach-baladan, then soundly defeated the alliance in the battle of Eltekeh, and thoroughly ravaged the country including Judah. Captives numbering 200,150 were taken, as recorded by Sennacherib. The Egyptian and Babylon help had been in vain.
It has been questioned whether this campaign of 701 b.c. was Sennacherib’s only invasion of Judah. It is the only one according to available Assyrian records, but information is scanty for the latter years of his reign. The Bible at first sight gives the impression that there was one campaign only, but it does mention both subjection with tribute, which clearly took place in 701 (2 Kings 18:14), and a successful resistance when Sennacherib’s army was miraculously decimated (18:17-19:37). In connection with this latter action it mentions Tirhakah (2 Kings 19:9) of the Ethiopian dynasty of Egypt, who was only nine years old in 701 b.c. It seems therefore better to assume that Sennacherib invaded again in about 688 after Tirhakah became king in Egypt (690 b.c.), and at this time Hezekiah trusted in the Lord more than in alliances and was marvelously delivered. (See the excellent discussion in J. Bright, op. cit. pp. 269-271.)
The city of Babylon was destroyed by Sennacherib in 689, perhaps in connection with the assumed rebellion of Hezekiah in 688. Esarhaddon (681-699) rebuilt Babylon and placed his son Shamash-shamukin as crown prince over it. Assurbanipal (668-626) left his brother Shamash-shamukin in control over Babylon until 647 when he had to subjugate the rebellious city again and held the reins himself until just before his death. The Chaldeans under Nabopolassar retook the city. Nabopolassar held it, expanded its influence, and finally joined with others in overthrowing Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, in 612 b.c. From 605 to 562, his great son Nebuchadnezzar ruled over all Mesopotamia and the W in a brief but brilliant revival of Babylonian power. He was followed in quick suscession by: Amel Marduk (Evil-Merodach, 2 Kings 25:27; 562-560 b.c.); Neriglisar (560-550); Labashi-Marduk (556) and Nabonidus (556-539). Nabonidus retired to Tema, an oasis in Arabia, and left his son Belshazzar as co-regent in Babylon. Belshazzar therefore bore the brunt of the Pers. feeling and died when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 b.c. Through Cyrus was fulfilled Isaiah’s great prophecies, “Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea....The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob” (Isa 48:20).
In summary of the above history, Isaiah lived in the era of empire-building as Assyria conquered the whole E. He also saw the rising power of Babylon and predicted the Jews’ unhappy captivity in that land and their deliverance under Cyrus of Persia. In these international movements and intrigues, Isaiah held strongly to his principle that Judah’s hope was not in armies or alliances, but in the promised protection of Yahweh. Judah was different from all lands. As a theocracy it was under the special electing love of God. “Say ye not a confederacy...Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your dread” (Isa 8:12, 13 KJV).
7. Dates of Hezekiah’s reign. The dates of Isaiah have not been given in the above survey. He prophesied in the reigns of “Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (1:1); but what dates do these cover? The problem is complicated by the fact that the reigns of these kings overlapped in ways that are hard to identify with precision. The date of Uzziah’s death is given by Thiele (E. R. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, rev. ed., [1965], p. 205) as 740/39. Jotham reigned sixteen years, Ahaz sixteen years, and Hezekiah ruled six years before Samaria fell in 721 b.c. Obviously there were co-regencies. This period has been treated successfully by Stigers (H. G. Stigers, “II Kings” in WBC and with slight modifications in ETSB, vol IX [1966], pp. 81-90). The details are not essential to the present subject. However, the reckoning of the date of Hezekiah is of significance to the interpretation of the Book of Isaiah.
1 Kings 18:10 says that Hezekiah began to reign six years before Samaria fell, therefore in 728/7 b.c. On the other hand, the writer says (18:13) that Hezekiah began to reign fourteen years before Sennacherib’s invasion, therefore in 715 b.c. This is by no means a contradiction. It merely indicates a co-regency with his father Ahaz. The consequences, however, are important for the background of Isaiah. If Hezekiah reigned twenty-nine years after 715, he died in 686 instead of 699, which would be the case if the twenty-nine years are counted from 728. The later date for Hezekiah’s death allows a later date for Isaiah’s ministry. He may well have lived into Esarhaddon’s reign and witnessed the beginning of the revival of Babylonian greatness. The last chs. of Isaiah may have a background either in the Babylonian struggles for power of the late 8th cent. or the Babylonian renascence under Esarhaddon. This would give Isaiah a ministry of some sixty years, which is long but by no means impossible. Actually it is practically necessitated by the reference to Hezekiah’s sickness (Isa 38:1-5). His sickness was “in those days,” apparently in the days of Sennacherib’s early campaigns. He received ambassadors from Merodach-baladan who, among other things, congratulated him on his recovery. This would be about 701 b.c., and it was predicted that he would live fifteen more years—to 686 as suggested above.
B. The unity of Isaiah
1. Traditional view. The unity of the Book of Isaiah was not questioned until the rise of higher Biblical criticism in the 18th cent. The book is ascribed to Isaiah in the title, and his name is mentioned in various other chapters (Isa. 2, 7, 13, 20, 37, 38, 39). The NT quotes from all sections of the book and repeatedly refers to it as the work of Isaiah. There is no MS or traditional evidence to show that the book is not a unity. If more than one author were involved in the composition, this fact is totally lost to history, and tradition on the matter begins at about 180 b.c. (Ecclus 48:22-25). The DSS include many copies of the book and numerous references to it, which ascribe it to Isaiah, as does the NT. The best preserved scroll of the Qumran treasures is the great Isaiah scroll found at the first, which dates from around 150 b.c. and gives no hint of a division at ch. 40, the spot at which critics allege a break.
2. Modern criticism. Nonetheless, the rationalistic criticism of Germany beginning with Döderlein has proclaimed with great assurance that Isaiah did not write chs. 40-66. This section has popularly been called Deutero-Isaiah for many years. The impression is abroad that everyone agrees that Isaiah wrote only the first thirty-nine chs., and an unnamed author (but a man of genius) wrote the last twenty-seven chs. during the Babylonian exile.
This popular impression is hardly accurate. The unity of chs. 40-66 has also been questioned, and many, beginning with B. Duhm, ascribe chs. 56-66 to still another hand—a Trito-Isaiah about 400 b.c. Also the first Isaiah must be dissolved. Few scholars who deny that Isaiah wrote the last part believe that he wrote all the first thirty-nine chapters. Chapters 13 and 14 at least, and prob. chs. 24-27 and 34 and 35 are also the work of a later hand. Indeed, once the unity of the book is questioned, there seems to be no end of the possible fragmentation. The course of these fragmentizing tendencies can be followed in O. T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah (1950), 43-50 and E. J. Young, Who Wrote Isaiah? (1958), as well as the various OT introductions of the critical school (Eissfeldt and Robert Pfeiffer) and of conservative persuasion (E. J. Young, Gleason Archer, etc.).
The basis of this pervasive literary criticism is alleged to be various. The two halves of the book are said to manifest quite distinct styles. This argument is hard for the ordinary reader to evaluate, not knowing Heb. It is still harder to establish, in view of the fact that those who fragment Isaiah excessively must deny that there are just two distinct styles visible in the book. There is some talk that the writer (or school of writers) of trito-Isaiah was immersed in the work of Deutero-Isaiah and copied him, but such a viewpoint is not so convincing when it is remembered that also Isaiah 1-39 is allegedly composite. A later school of oral traditionists would have it that all of Isaiah was preserved by word of mouth and all of it written down after the restoration—approximately 450 b.c. Was it all written by one school? If so, is it believable that there were two or three styles? Was it written by three circles of Isaianic disciples? Why were the pieces so cleverly interwoven into one composition without a trace in the MS or tradition? Actually the Heb. of the various parts of Isaiah is eloquent, beautiful, and forceful, and no more diverse than that of any other great author, e.g., Shakespeare. Parts of the book may have been written at a later stage of the author’s life. Part may have been sermonic and orally delivered at first. Part (chs. 36-39) is obviously historical and quite parallel to 2 Kings 18-20. Part may have been produced originally by Isaiah as a written composition. As many have pointed out, there are several significant signs of unity in style in the book (cf. G. L. Robinson, “Isaiah” ISBE [1929] III, pp. 1495-1508).
3. Prophecies of the Exile. The most significant objection to the unity of Isaiah is found in the charge that the background of the author of chs. 41-66 is different from that of Isaiah himself. The claim is made that these chs. reflect the times of the Babylonian captivity and therefore could not have been written in about 700 b.c. by Isaiah.
Conservatives have answered this charge by pointing out that Isaiah 40-66 includes passages that are prophetic. Cyrus, the Pers. monarch who conquered Babylon in 539 b.c., is mentioned by name (Isa 44:28; 45:1). His name is mentioned as the climax of a great prediction of future things. Naturalists, who do not believe in predictive prophecy, must of course postdate such a section, but this is to beg the question. The claim of Isaiah and Christian expositors through the ages has been that such prophecies are true predictions, and they prove the naturalistic approach to be in error.
O. T. Allis follows out this approach in some detail. He shows that the critical view of the unity of Isaiah rests largely on the preconceived rationalistic assumption. In his ch. “Prophecy According to the Critics” (op. cit., 1-21), he quotes numerous sources to show that the basic reason for the critics’ dating of OT prophetical material after the event concerned is that the critical school cannot believe that the OT prophet spoke directly the words of a God who knows whatsoever comes to pass.
Critical students sometimes object to this analysis. They argue that Isaiah 40-55 does not even claim to predict the Babylonian captivity. True, it predicts the conquest of Babylon under Cyrus and a return from the Exile. But, it is said, these chs. are written as if the Exile had already begun; therefore, the Exile is assumed, not predicted. The prophet is writing in the middle of the Exile and predicts, perhaps by keen insight and devout hope, the return from Babylonian captivity. Therefore these chs., at least, must be due to an anonymous prophet writing during the Exile.
The critical view must therefore be examined a bit further. What is the background of Isaiah 40-66? Anyone can read these chs. for himself to seek an answer to this question. This section of Isaiah is obviously a message to Zion, to Jerusalem (40:2; 41:27). God promised to bring back the captivity of Israel from the E, W, N, and S (43:5, 6; cf. 11:11, doubtless written early), which does not seem to refer to the Babylonian exile specifically or exclusively. It is true that the downfall of Babylon is predicted (43:14; 47:1; 48:14), and the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is predicted (44:26-28; 45:13; 48:20; 51:11). A return from the N, the W, and from Egypt is predicted (49:12 where “Sinim” in the DSS is spelled to indicate that it refers to Syene or Aswan, then under the control of the Ethiopian king of Egypt). But it is too much to say that the prophet speaks from the location of a Babylonian exile. J. Smart summarizes, “The simple fact, which should be frankly acknowledged, is that the author of chs. 40-55 nowhere makes clear to us his geographical location” (James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah [1955], p. 22). It is, of course, true that the captivity in Babylon is predicted by Isaiah. Critics by their unwarranted division lose the force of Isaiah 39:6-8, which is a specific prediction and clearly was written in connection with the well-known usurper king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan, therefore no later than 701 b.c. There are also references to captivity (45:13; 47:6; 49:21; 51:3, 11, 19). The last four of these could as well refer to the awful desolations and captivities in the days of Sennacherib. In any case, they a re not written from the standpoint of the Babylonian Exile. Contrast them with Psalm 137, which is truly an exilic composition.
The view of J. Barton Payne should be mentioned (“The Unity of Isaiah: Evidence from Chapters 36-39,” ETSB, VI [1963], pp. 50-57), which holds that Isaiah 40-55 have their background in the 8th cent. and the conqueror from the E (41:2) is Sennacherib. This view may not be acceptable in some details, but it underscores the remark by Smart that the background of these chs. is not clearly marked. Either in geography or chronology, it cannot be said that Isaiah 40-55 was written by a prophet of the Exile, unless the critical assumption be made that truly predictive prophecy referring accurately to distant events is impossible. This idea conservatives refuse to allow.
As to the background of the larger section (Isa 40-66), it is widely admitted that chs. 55-66 were written in Pal. The mountain (57:7) does not look like Babylon. The walls of Jerusalem are established (62:6). The Lord appears from Edom (63:1, though this is doubtless eschatological). On the contrary, a complaint (64:10, 11) describes the times after Nebuchadnezzar. This section is ascribed by many to Trito-Isaiah writing in Pal. about 400 b.c. This date seems impossible in view of the Temple’s restoration in 516 b.c. Smart objects to the division at ch. 55, for he claims it posits “two great prophets who were almost identical” (op. cit., 47). Perhaps the simplest answer to the complex problems is to follow L. Kohler and J. Begrich and others, who are pictured by Smart as “treating the text of second Isaiah as a compendium of seventy independent oracles and applying to them the methods of form criticism in order to discover the original character and context of each” (op. cit. p. 18). This is the logical outcome of the critical attack. What a genius the final editor must have been to assemble seventy different snippets of writing with varied background and messages, and weld them into a book of the beauty and power and lasting influence of Isaiah 40-66. This dynamic genius lived sometime within those dark two centuries from 400-200 b.c., when Israel was impoverished and her history a blank. His name and fame, however, left no imprint upon his contemporaries or successors. It is perhaps easier to believe in predictive prophecy.
It should be noted that the author of Isaiah 40-48 at least does not present his ideas as contemporary material, which anyone of keen political insight could deduce. His is not a late anonymous writing picked up and attached to the earlier book by accident. Nor is his work a pious fraud merely claiming the authority of the great old prophet Isaiah. He claims to predict the future because he gives the word of a God who differs from the idols of the heathen (Isa 41:22; 42:9; 44:7, 8; 45:4; 46:10; 48:3-6 and other less clear passages). Cyrus himself is pictured as coming in answer to a prediction, and the poem predicting his work is a climax and crescendo of prophecy (cf. G. L. Robinson, Isaiah, ISBE, III, 1507a; O. T. Allis, op. cit., 62-78). The alternatives left by such studies are that these chs. in Isaiah are truly predictive of a future captivity and return, or they were written after the event by a deliberate trickster and impersonator. That the wonderful words of this section in Isaiah are the words of a cheat and liar, is too much to allow.
4. Unity of 1-39. Bearing upon these matters is the question of the unity of Isaiah 1-39, or at least 1-35. Chapters 13, 14 are usually denied to first Isaiah. Why? They are ascribed to him. They refer to Babylon’s fall by the hand of the Medes, not exactly like the Pers. conquest pictured in Isaiah 44, 45. They are part of a larger whole of prophecies against surrounding nations and some of these other passages concern the time of Isaiah (14:25). The truth is best served by making these chs. fit an early date, and the mention of Babylon be a true prediction.
After the oracles against the nations, comes a section (24-27) widely denied to Isaiah. The reason is not history, but theology. The resurrection of the dead is mentioned (25:8; 26:19). The general attitude toward the doctrine is exhibited by James Smart who on this basis argues against finding the doctrine of resurrection in Isaiah 53: “Those who see an individual in the servant have on their hands in this verse (Isa 53:10) the resurrection of an individual from the dead, a somewhat embarrassing phenomenon if the ch. is to be retained as written by the prophet in the sixth century b.c.” (op. cit., p. 212). The error is that critics think they are able to reconstruct with assurance the history of Israel’s religious thought, in spite of the documents, in accordance with their own theories. The psalms of David, the Book of Job, Isaiah 53, Daniel 12:2 and the section Isaiah 24-27 must all be dated late because critics have concluded that the doctrine of the resurrection was derived from the Persians rather than revealed by God.
By the same token, Isaiah 34 and 35 are denied to Isaiah because of their apocalytic cast. The word apocalyptic used of this section and 24-27 needs elucidation. It is held that the prophetic interpretation of history was that repentance will bring God’s favor. But after the Exile this theory was seen to be deficient, and an apocalyptic view prevailed in which the pious must wait in resignation for God to bring universal vengeance and judgment (cf. S. B. Frost, “Apocalyptic and History,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship ed. J. P. Hyatt [1965], pp. 104-113). This theology of apocalyptic is denied to earlier times on subjective grounds, although the wording of Isaiah 35:8-10 is much like that of the earlier section (11:15, 16). It seems that a confusion has arisen between an apocalyptic theology and apocalyptic as a literary style. As for literary style, the apocalyptic typically includes bizarre images symbolizing world history and eschatological events. Examples of such lit. are the books of Daniel, Enoch, and Revelation. No one really knows when such lit. began. There is no positive evidence against an early date for Daniel, and certainly Isaiah 24-27 and 34, and 35 do not exhibit such symbolic animals. The only exception is Isaiah 27:1 where “leviathan” is described. Unfortunately for higher criticism, Isaiah’s description of this evil power is given in terms almost identical with a passage found in the Ugaritic lit. of 1400 b.c.
It is obvious that chs. 36-39 are practically identical with 2 Kings 18:19-20:19. The main difference is that Isaiah includes Hezekiah’s psalm concerning his sickness (38:9-20, note the title). The question is, do these chs. break the unity of Isaiah or of Kings? The answer is, neither one. The chs. certainly belong in the historical record of the kings of Judah. They are said to be abstracted from the chronicles of the kings of Judah (2 Kings 20:20) as are the histories of the previous and following kings. These chs. are abstracted in 2 Chronicles which says, “the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the Book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (2 Chron 32:32). It cannot be pressed that this refers to the Book of Isaiah and of 2 Kings. In other cases, a writing of a prophet is cited in Chronicles which appears to be a section of the current books of Samuel-Kings (1 Chron 29:29; 2 Chron 9:29; 20:34, etc.). Therefore 2 Chronicles 32:32 could mean no more than that this portion of 2 Kings was written by Isaiah, which is reasonable enough in view of the other writings of prophets cited as sources by Chronicles—which, of course, uses Samuel-Kings as its main source. However, the reference (2 Chron 32:32) to both the vision of Isaiah and also the book of the kings of Israel and Judah looks much like a declaration that both Isaiah and 2 Kings had these parallel portions in the days of the Chronicles, now widely admitted to be about 400 b.c. There is no problem here, for the chs. fit admirably into the Book of Isaiah. The prophecy of Babylonian captivity (39:6, 7) forms almost a necessary background for the treatment of the Babylonian captivity (chs. 40-48). Someone clearly felt that these chs. helped to explain the material in the Book of Isaiah. There is no solid reason why Isaiah himself could not have put them here.
C. Authorship, date and place of origin
As has been argued above, the author of this book is Isaiah the son of Amoz, writing from about 739 b.c. to 681 b.c. or slightly longer. Of this man nothing more is known. The prophetic office was not hereditary and no genealogy is given of any of the prophets except those who also served in other connections (e.g., David). His father, Amoz, is to be distinguished from the prophet Amos. The names are distinct also in the Heb. Isaiah was a highly educated man as shown by the breadth of his vocabulary and the quality of his lit. He was also a prophet of the greatest faith and power. Delitzsch calls him “the universal prophet of Israel.” Robinson calls his style “the climax of Hebrew literary art.” It is hard to overemphasize the influence of his book or the strength of attraction it has had over the centuries. Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms were the three most-used books in the Qumran community. The NT alludes to this book over 250 times and quotes it expressly at least 50 times.
Isaiah was a confidante of Hezekiah and moved easily in the royal circles of Jerusalem. Many of the religious reforms of Hezekiah can prob. be traced to the influence of this godly court preacher. More uncertain is the question of his priestly office. His inaugural vision is set in the Temple of the Lord into which only priests could go. It was a vision, and the Temple that he saw could have been the heavenly prototype. Nowhere is Isaiah specifically called a priest. The idea that he continued into the reign of Manasseh is substantiated unless, as is unlikely, Isaiah 37:37, 38 is considered as a later addition. Further tradition has it that he was persecuted by Manasseh, took refuge in a hollow tree; the tree closed around him, but Manasseh had the tree, prophet and all, sawed in two. This legend is from the Assumption of Isaiah, a post-Christian work now lost. It is possible, but no means certain, that Hebrews 11:37 refers to this incident. Other Heb. tradition found in the Talmud relates that he suffered under Manasseh, which is probable.
Isaiah’s influence was restricted to the southern kingdom (Judah). Samaria is mentioned only as an enemy power in the section, chs. 7-12. Bethel and Gilgal, prominent sanctuaries of the N against which Hosea and Amos spoke, are not mentioned in Isaiah. It cannot be proved that the chs. are all chronological, but at least Sargon, the Assyrian king who immediately followed the fall of Samaria, is introduced in ch. 20. The fall of Samaria is hardly referred to (10:9-11). The location and outlook of the prophet is exclusively that of the kingdom of Judah. Zion is the center of his interest all through the book, and the policies of the court are his constant concern. They were turbulent days in Judah. Isaiah was God’s man for the time of crisis.
D. Isaiah’s canonicity
Isaiah’s place in the canon of the OT is sure. As the longest and in many ways the richest of the prophets, it was early accorded high esteem. The evidence of contemporary religious documents is lacking, but later documents honor Isaiah in terms still used today. Ecclesiasticus 48:22-25, ASV (c. 180 b.c.) speaks of “Isaiah the prophet,” “who was great and faithful in his vision. In his days the sun went backward, and he lengthened the life of the king. By the spirit of might he saw the last things, and comforted those who mourned in Zion. He revealed what was to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things before they came to pass.” These vv. allude to all parts of the book and show the highest regard for it as the work of a prophet by the Spirit of God. There is no earlier witness except 2 Chronicles 32:32 already mentioned.
The DSS include the complete scroll of Isaiah dating from around 150 b.c. plus several other copies more or less fragmentary. Beyond this there are several quotations from the Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea lit. The Manual of Discipline, coming from perhaps the late 2nd cent. b.c., quotes Isaiah 40:3 as “Scripture” and interprets this v. as referring to “the study of the Law which God commanded through Moses...and with what the prophets also have revealed through God’s Holy Spirit” (T. D. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, rev. ed. [1964], 64, 65).
The Zadokite Document is also found in Qumran in fragmentary form, but there are copies of it available from the Cairo Geniza at a later date. It also quotes Isaiah with the words “as God has said through the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz” (Gaster, op. cit., p. 75). Again there is a reference to “what is described by the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz” (ibid., p. 80). The Book of Isaiah also is clearly utilized by the author of the Thanksgiving Hymns (ibid., 149, lines 11, 12 and 180 line 5 from bottom). It is clear that Isaiah was regarded as Scripture, as the Word of God and fully authoritative. The words of the prophets are regularly quoted in Qumran on a par with the law of Moses. And one who should “transgress a single word of the Law of Moses” was to be excommunicated (ibid., p. 65). As noted above the Qumran scribes called their sacred books the “law and the prophets.” This is quite parallel to the NT usage. Qumran (and NT) usage shows that this sacred canon included the Pentateuch, historical books like Joshua, prophetical books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nahum, Habakkuk, Daniel, etc. and books of poetry and instruction, e.g., Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. All of these books and others are mentioned in such a way as to show that they were held sacred. In short, the canon of the OT held by the Qumran scribes was prob. just like the present canon, although the evidence for every book is not conclusive. Isaiah certainly was esp. beloved, although before the date of 180 b.c., there is little evidence on Isaiah, pro or con.
Actually, some information can be gained from comparing Jeremiah 48 with Isaiah 15 and 16. Many vv. are parallel so that it would seem likely that one writing borrowed from the other (cf. Isa 15:5 and Jer 48:34; Isa 16:6 and Jer 48:29, etc.). It is not at once apparent who borrowed from whom. Yet Jeremiah (48:42, 46) predicts the end of Moab whereas Isaiah (16:14) speaks more generally. Jeremiah in this section quotes from the Book of Numbers (Jer 48:45 and Num 21:28; 24:17). Jeremiah elsewhere quotes Micah 3:12 (Jer 26:18) and Hosea 10:12; 3:5 (Jer 4:3; 30:9) and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Jer 3:1 and elsewhere) and Psalm 106:1 (Jer 33:11). In view of Jeremiah’s practice elsewhere, it is likely that Jeremiah 48 quoted from Isaiah 15 and 16, and not vice versa. In short, such scanty evidence before 180 b.c. is from tradition and a few quotations, but there is no positive evidence against Isaiah’s ancient position in the canon.
E. The text of Isaiah
The remarkable discovery among the DSS of Isaiah in 1947 gave Bible students for the first time a pre-Christian copy of an OT book. It was-most gratifying to find that the text of the scroll supported the MT of the current Heb. Bibles except in vocalization, spelling, or other minor matters, e.g., the use of the article, prepositions, the conjunction, etc. The extent of the textual variations can be seen in the footnotes at the bottom of the page in Kittel’s Heb. Bible, 8th ed. and following. Comparison shows that this pre-Christian text is in good agreement with that of the later Jewish copies, the so-called MT. The agreement is not as exact as the mutual agreement of MSS of the MT, but the agreement is more like that between NT MSS. It appears that the scribes were careful, but did not work with the painstaking exactitude of the medieval scribes. For instance, in the famous passage (Isaiah 9:5-7) the only differences are that “peace” has the Heb. article attached and the words “to establish it, and to uphold it” take “it” in the masculine instead of the feminine. The differences are minimal. In Isaiah 53, there are several minor differences of spelling and endings that do not change the sense. The conjunction waw, “and,” is added or subtracted about ten times, which is prob. a matter of style. Equivalent synonymous words are used in two places. The only meaningful difference is in v. 11 where the reading is “he shall see light.” This manifestly incorrect reading is also found in the LXX.
The conclusion is that the MT can now be traced back in this scroll to about 150 b.c. and in other examples to before 200 b.c. It is significant that the new though very ancient scroll is, to a careful reader, obviously a poorer witness to the MT than the later more careful copies that are available. Therefore this early MS actually serves to authenticate the extant text. There is another slightly later copy of Isaiah which is rather fragmentary; it is in close agreement with the later MT text.
The LXX text of Isaiah has been long known to be in agreement with the MT, though there are problems in detail. The famous commission to Isaiah (6:9, 10) is given in the imperative in the MT, but in the past tense in the LXX (quoted in Matt 13:14, 15 and Acts 28:26, 27). Actually the difference is one of vocalization, for the consonants (no vowels), which were written in antiquity, are the same for both readings. In general it may be concluded that the text of the book has been well supported by recent study and discoveries. As previously noted, none of the new finds suggest a division of the book in accordance with the critical hypotheses.
F. Special problems
1. The book of Immanuel and the Virgin Birth. The section of chs. 7-12 often is called the book of Immanuel because of the great messianic prophecy (Isa 7:14). It is probable, though not certain, that all of these chs. come from that early period in Isaiah’s ministry when he opposed Ahaz’ policies. It will be remembered that Tiglath-pileser was expanding westward about 733. Syria and Israel (northern kingdom) were building defensive alliances and wished Ahaz to join. Ahaz refused, and the coalition threatened to attack Jerusalem to replace Ahaz with a king who would be more cooperative. Isaiah counseled Ahaz not to fear but to rely upon the Lord. Ahaz, no orthodox believer, bypassed Isaiah and appealed to Tiglath-pileser to help him by establishing a second front beyond Damascus. What happened then is not known in detail. It seems that the Assyrians did help Ahaz, but not in time, for Ahaz was beaten by Syria and Israel. The Assyrians also came, though perhaps too late, and carried captive much of Damascus and Galilee.
In such critical days Isaiah with his son Shearjashub accosted Ahaz, prob. while he was inspecting the city’s defenses and water resources. He first urged Ahaz not to fear the northern coalition. He declares that within sixty-five years Ephraim would be destroyed (Isa 7:8). It is clear that this prophecy was fulfilled in due time. In about ten years Samaria became a province of the Assyrian empire. Assurbanipal (668-633) interchanged the populations of Ephraim and Mesopotamia effectively, destroying Ephraim as a people (Ezra 4:10; 2 Kings 17:24). It is a puzzle, however, why Isaiah speaks of this event in this way. Actually he repeats this prophecy (Isa 8:1-4), for he prophesies that before his second son Maher-shalal-hashbaz will be old enough to talk, Ahaz’ two enemies will fall before the Assyrians, which would mean two or three years. The problem is solved summarily for some by cutting out the last half of Isaiah 7:8. There is no evidence for this, however, in ancient texts or VSS. Commentators have few suggestions of merit. If the writer be permitted any theory, it would be that it refers to the age of one of the kings concerned. It could then be understood to mean that before Rezin’s sixty-fifth year these things would happen; but scholars know so little of the details that this must remain as theory.
At all events the prophet bade Ahaz seek a sign that the promise would come to pass (7:12). Ahaz answered with what seems clearly a quotation (Deut 6:16), the same v. quoted by Christ in answer to Satan (Matt 4:7). Ahaz was not sincere. Isaiah prob. knew his hypocrisy and that he had already relied on payment of tribute and an alliance with Assyria for help. Isaiah therefore turns on Ahaz with a sharp rebuke.
The famous Immanuel passage (Isa 7:10-17) is usually thought of as a promised blessing for Ahaz, or at least for the house of David. This view comes from stopping the paragraph at the end of v. 16. Rather, the section should be continued through v. 17 as does the ASV and RSV. The prophet in rebuke tells Ahaz that his real enemy is Assyria (v. 17). The petty kings of Israel and Syria are of little account. The real tragedy will be the invasion of Assyria whom Ahaz has hired.
Seen in this light, the virgin birth prophecy was not necessarily a current event full of blessed meaning for Ahaz. For him it was a threat. Before this occurs, the land will be desolated by Assyria. Isaiah did not set a date, for he did not know the date. Elsewhere he speaks of the coming wonderful king of David’s line without giving the time. The coming of the Rod of Jesse is prophesied (11:1) in close succession to the downfall of the Assyrians (10:24-34). Isaiah was only to know that at an unspecified time the Messiah would come, and he warns Ahaz to mend his ways, because before the Messiah would come, the Assyrians would invade and bring tragedy greater than the division of Ephraim from Judah. Actually there is no information that this invasion came before the days of Sennacherib in 701 b.c., thirty years after the prophecy was given. It could not in any case refer to a child of Ahaz or of Isaiah.
Isaiah refers to the birth of a child. In Isaiah 9:6, 7 he makes it plain that the longedfor king of David’s line will come as a child, indeed a divine child. The names given then are not just names applicable to any human being. Note that the name “The Mighty God” is applied to the Lord God (10:20, 21). Isaiah was expecting a divine child of David’s line. This child had nothing to do with Isaiah’s second son Maher-shalal-hashbaz (8:1-4), who was not of David’s line. He was born in the normal course to Isaiah and his wife. He was given a rather ordinary symbolic name (meaning “hasten to the booty, hasten to the spoil”) as was Isaiah’s first son Shearjashub (“a remnant shall return”).
But the child is named Immanuel (Isa 7:14) which is apparently the name of God (8:8) and the name is tr. in 8:10. The child is to be born of a virgin. Much controversy has revolved about this word ’almâ. A Heb. concordance will show that it occurs six other times (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 68:25; Prov 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8). Never is it applied to a married woman. The word is used for Rebecca about to be married (Gen 24:43), and for Miriam who was evidently just a young girl (Exod 2:8). The parallel word ’elem, meaning “boy,” is used of David at the time when he slew Goliath and before (1 Sam 17:56; cf. 20:22). That word also is not used in reference to a married person. The root ’lm may be related to the verb “conceal” (also ’lm), but this is not sure. It would be an attractive thought that the word refers to a girl still kept at home in her father’s house. The emphasis is not so much on virginity (there is another specific word for that) as on being young and unmarried which, of course, implies virginity. The tr. “young woman” is not specific enough; “unmarried girl” is nearer to the meaning. The old Eng. “maid” or German magd (used by Luther) captures the idea very well. The only further light on this word is from Ugaritic, where the cognate word g’almat is used in poetic parallel with the word used of a virgin in the OT (betûlâ). It is also given as the name of a goddess.
The reference to butter and honey (Isa 7:15) has been variously interpreted. Some think of it as heavenly food. Others regard it as food of luxury—which it is (7:22). The simplest idea is that in v. 15 it refers to a baby’s first food after weaning. The passage thus declares that before the Messiah Immanuel is born of a virgin and is weaned, the Assyrian will come and depopulate the land.
That this passage predicts a virgin birth is further indicated by the ancient translations. The LXX VS which was made about two centuries before Christ, trs. the word ’almâ by parthenos, the Gr. word for virgin. It is significant that in places where an OT quotation is found in Matthew alone, Matthew does not follow the LXX. Thus in Matthew 1:23 also, the quotation, though it is short and there is a problem in details, does not agree with the LXX in the best texts. It may be concluded that Matthew gives independent evidence for the tr. “virgin” (Isa 7:14). The Syriac Peshitta VS of Isaiah 7:14 uses the specific word betûlâ, “virgin.” The force of the Peshitta, however, is diminished by the fact that there is no definite information on whether it was tr. by Christians or Jews.
The usual critical view is that Isaiah 7:14 refers to a contemporaneous birth of a child by the wife of Ahaz or Hezekiah. This view denies both the miraculous and prophetic element. Some who hold a high view of Scripture speak of both an immediate and distant fulfillment. If the v. speaks of a truly virgin birth, there is no point in the v. not being applied to Jesus. In any case it was not fulfilled until after Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 b.c. thirty years after Isaiah spoke. If it be remembered that Isaiah shared the ancient hope of the coming of a divine child, then this prediction finds its full raison d’être as a timeless threat to the rebellious Ahaz.
2. The eschatological use of Edom. Many will not have felt the problem raised by the mention of the overthrow of Edom in the last days, but the subject raises principles of some importance. Isaiah 34:4 presents a picture used by Christ to refer to His coming in judgment (Matt 24:29; cf. Rev 6:13, 14). This seems therefore to be a prediction of Christ’s return in judgment. The next vv. (Isa 34:5, 6) refer to a great slaughter in Edom. Of this the NT is silent. A suggested solution can be found by examining the mention of Moab in Isaiah 25:7-10. There the promise is given that death will be conquered (v. 8)—quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:54. In Isaiah (25:10) it is said that Moab shall be vanquished. Moab is not mentioned in this way in the NT. Rather the NT pictures Babylon as the evil power of the end, indeed, not literal Babylon, but Babylon symbolizing Rome, the city that sits on seven hills (Rev 17:5, 9). It may be held that these vv. are eschatological as is indicated by their context and the NT quotations, and that the various enemy nations were mentioned as symbolic of the last evil persecuting power. The fact that several different nations are so mentioned supports this idea.
3. The servant poems. Extensive lit. has grown up around the problem of interpreting the servant passages (Isa 41:8; to