In my daily reading I am approaching the fortieth chapter of Isaiah. The message of that chapter and what follows is so wonderful and contrasts so markedly with the condemnations and judgments of the first thirty-nine chapters, that some have regarded chapters 40-66 as the work of a different author. The weight of scholarship since the end of the eighteenth century has been heavy in promoting this idea. Many were taught it in seminary as if it were fact, indisputable.
And yet it is a theory based on the sudden change of theme between chapters thirty-nine and forty. The idea that Isaiah was written by two different persons or groups has never made sense to me. The evidence has always seemed tendentious given the desired conclusion.
Two reasons: I am a writer and understand that any author not only may change the focus of the story at any time but must at a certain crisis point in the story. The fortieth chapter of Isaiah is time for some good news. It follows an historical interlude about King Hezekiah and the Assyrians in chapters 36-39. It is time for the change. Enough promises of future judgment. Build on God’s historic deliverance of Jerusalem as described in 36-39 and elsewhere and deliver the good news. As a writer, the timing of the shift in chapter forty makes perfect sense.
The other reason is that Isaiah clearly is preparing for chapter forty in the chapters that precede the historical section. Look at the final verse in chapter 33 which speaks about a promised deliverance from the sickness of sin, for just one example. That verse could just as well be in Isaiah 40 or 53.
As to the many parts of Isaiah 40-66 that speak retrospectively about the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem and the return of God’s people, this is the prophetic imperfect in Hebrew grammar, quite common, where the speaker regards the prophecy as so absolutely certain that it is couched in the past tense. Isaiah believed what he prophesied.
Modern Christians can be so credulous, including those taking seminary courses. Look at the evidence of the book of Isaiah itself instead of buying into the theories of the big names, some of whom very much wanted to separate the idea of judgment for sin from the good news of the Gospel. And think of the effect on the believers who hear when someone says, “Open your Bibles to Second Isaiah.” The effect is to believe one must rely on the seminary-trained expert for understanding the Bible because what the Bible seems to be is not what it is. That is not the kind of disciple our Lord wants.
You are safe in taking the Bible to be exactly what it purports to be.
Yes, I’ve been to seminary. But, thank God, I was taught to put more credence in the content of Isaiah than in eighteenth century theories about it.