Isaiah Organization

In my reflections on Isaiah 58 last week, I was struck by (and posted) how relevant it seemed to our time. Part of that was recognizing how pointedly it spoke to the people of Judah when they returned from the Exile in Babylon. That got me thinking about the scholarly explorations and debates about the structure and authorship of the book of Isaiah. Clearly, chapters 1-39 were a wake-up call to the spiritually complacent time of peace and prosperity in the eighth century BCE during the lifetime of the prophet Isaiah. Chapters 40-54 speak most clearly to their distress and despair during the time of Exile in Babylon. And chapters 55-66 were a word of encouragement and call for renewal as they longed for past glory on returning to the land of Judah after the Exile in Babylon.

I grew up and was educated in a setting that assumed and affirmed that the unity of the book of Isaiah depended on him having been the author of the entire book in the eighth century BCE. That perspective rejected positing two or three Isaiahs as attacks on the integrity and reliability of Scripture. It became a litmus test of orthodoxy (shibboleth – Judges 12:6) that discredited or discounted the scholarship and maybe even faith of any who did not affirm it. I am sure some reading this have already dismissed where I am headed with this by recognizing the structure of the book. Nevertheless, as I have sought to understand and live out the message of Scripture through the years, I have come to posit a question that I believe leaves intact the foundational orthodoxy of the inspiration of Scripture and grasp its full significance for both its original readers and for us.

Though a number of other issues are involved, the references to Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28; 45:1.13 are a kind of watershed in this discussion. Those who argue for the traditional unity of the book as Isaiah’s writing, present this as evidence of God’s wonderful foreknowledge to be able to reveal to a prophet, even centuries in advance, the name of a specific person in salvation history. Those who argue for two or three authors assert that not only would Isaiah not have had any way to know Cyrus’ name, it would have had no meaning for him or his readers. However, Cyrus’ identity was intrinsic to the hope of returning to Judah for those in Exile in Babylon. They also point out, correctly, that after chapter 39, Isaiah’s name in not mentioned nor are there references to persons or events from the eighth century BCE. The text of Isaiah that we have does not have section subheads, nor are manuscripts extant divided into two or three parts, but all of these trace to times well after the relevant times of history.

I do not intend or expect to resolve either the scholarly or faith issues involved in this debate. This, however, is my question. If we affirm that God was able to name a specific person well in advance, could not that same God have been able to raise up prophets within the community of those who kept alive the witness of Isaiah? Could not God have revealed to such prophets messages customize to their time and situation? Would not such prophetic words have the same integrity and authority as the original message with which they are associated?

While the exploration of the issues around how the text of Isaiah came to us in the form we know are fascinating, I am suggesting that getting caught up in debating those issues can be a distraction from recognizing how well focused each section of Isaiah is for each of the stages of Judah’s history. And more importantly, how grappling with those foci empower us to receive the full impact of Isaiah for our own time. For me, understanding how Isaiah 58 spoke to those who were longing for a return of lost glory after returning from Babylon to Judah sharpens our hearing its message in our time of yearning as followers of Jesus in a nation in turmoil.