Blog

Have you heard someone teach that the book of Isaiah had two different authors?  That there were two Isaiahs?  This “Second Isaiah ” theory has become popular among some modern scholars, who can’t accept the idea that God could actually predict the future.

In chapters 40-66 of Isaiah, many predictions were made about Israel’s Babylonian Captivity, which occurred in 587 B.C.  However, the time of the prophet Isaiah was in the 700’s B.C., and so the critics had to come up with a second Isaiah that wrote chapters 40-66 sometime after the Babylonian Captivity, and then just made it appear that he wrote before this event, and was making predictions.  Of course this would make the author of  this part of Isaiah a deceiver, since he would be pretending to predict things that already had happened in the past.  The skeptics especially have a problem with the idea that God specifically named the Persian King Cyrus over 150 years before he lived and conquered Babylon.  So they had to cook up a second Isaiah.   They have even named this second Isaiah “Deutero-Isaiah.”

Therefore the “Second Isaiah” theory mainly came about because of an anti-supernatural bias.  To support their theory, advocates cite supposed differences in language and style between Isaiah 1-39 and  “Second Isaiah”, namely chapters 40-66.  Also they claim there are doctrinal differences between the two sections.  They resort to lists of rare or unique words and phrases to try and demonstrate that there were two authors.  Examples of the doctrinal differences they mention are that “Second Isaiah” does not mention the Messianic King or faithful remnant of Israel, but instead emphasizes the suffering Servant.   Another is that God’s rule and uniqueness was also more emphasized in “Second Isaiah”. But these arguments from language, style and doctrine not only turn out to be very weak, but there is much evidence to contradict them.

First, the supposed doctrinal differences contain no definite contradictions, and the different emphasis in “Second Isaiah” can be explained by the fact that an idol-worshipping king, Manasseh, had taken over, and conditions had therefore changed to the point where God’s uniqueness and rule had to be emphasized against all the false gods and idols.  And as judgment loomed over Israel as their disobedience went on, it was natural to shift the emphasis to the atonement provided by the Suffering Servant. Many of the sames sins denounced in  the first section of Isaiah are still being denounced in the second section, such as bloodshed and violence (Is 1: 13-15, 59:3,7), religious hypocrisy: (Is 29:13, 58:2,4) There are also many passages in Isaiah 40-66 that refer to idolatry that is still in the land (Is 44:9-20, 57:4-5), yet after the Babylonian captivity, there was little to no idolatry practiced by the Jews who returned to the land,as can be seen by examining the writings from that post-exilic period (such as Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and others)  There are other evils denounced in these later writings, but idolatry is not among them.

Supposed differences in language and style run into great problems also.  There turns out to be many similarities between “First” and “Second Isaiah”.  For example:

• The title “the Holy One of Israel” occurs only five times in the Old Testament outside of Isaiah, yet this same title for God occurs 12 times in Isaiah chapters 1-39, and 14 times in Isaiah chapters 40-66  [1].  This is very strong evidence for the unity of Isaiah. And why doesn’t this title show up in the writings of other authors writing after the Babylonian captivity?  The critics may answer that the second author was simply imitating the first, but this reasoning is circular, because when there are differences they say that there are two authors, but when there are similarities, they fall back on the imitator theory.  Furthermore, if the author of chapters 40-66 really was an imitator, why was his name omitted, especially when the ancient Hebrews put such high importance on having the name of the prophet attached to his prophecy?
• There are over forty sentences or phrases that are very similar or even identical in both sections of Isaiah [2].  Example: “For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken it” found in Isaiah 1:20, 40:5, 58:14.  “Will assemble the outcasts of Israel”  (Is. 11:12) compare with “gathereth the outcasts of Israel” (Is. 56:8).  “The lion shall eat straw like the ox…they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain” (in both Is. 11:6-9 and Is. 65:25).
• There are many literary resemblances to the writings of Micah from the 700’s B.C.-not likely if compose in the 500’s B.C.
• Even some verb tenses unique to Isaiah are found in both sections[3].

So the style difference argument fails.

In addition, there are also predictions of the Babylonian captivity in Isaiah 1-39.  Isaiah 13:1 “The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.” Obviously it’s Isaiah making a prediction, since at the time Babylon was not yet a world power.   Isaiah 13:17  predicts the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the eventual desolation of Babylon 13:19-20, and the destruction and exile of Judah in Isaiah 6:11-12.  In many other verses in the first section of Isaiah, we can see that the Lord was revealing to him that the exile was coming: (see Is 3:24-26, 5:5-6, 6-11-13, 24:11-12, 27:13, 32:13-18).

And of course, there are also predictions not fulfilled until the coming of Christ seven centuries later: “In Galilee of the nations.  The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light…”…For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given…” (Isaiah 9:1-2, 6).

In Isaiah 40-66 the people needed hope that they would be restored to their homeland after exile.  God did this by emphasizing His ability to tell future events: ” Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.” (Is. 42:9), “That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built,and to the temple, thy foundation shall be laid.” (Is 44:28, a prediction of the decree of the Persian king Cyrus in 536 B.C. to allow Israel to return to their home), “…I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient time the things that are not yet done, saying: my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” (Is 46:9-10), “I have even from the beginning declared it unto thee; before it came to pass I shewed it unto thee; lest thou shouldest say, mine idol hath done them…” (Is 48:5)

God also specifically named the Persian king who would conquer Babylon. Here are some of the verses concerning the king ofPersia: “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid” (Isaiah 44:28). “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him. . .For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me” (Isaiah 45:1a, 4).

Not only did the Lord name this Persian king, but he also predicted this king would end their captivity so they could rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. The prophecy, given in about 700 B.C., was fulfilled when a Persian king named Cyrus indeed conquered Babylon in 538 B.C. This would be as astonishing as finding a writer naming former President George W. Bush in a document dating from the 1840s and President Bush picking up this old document and seeing his name there!

What all these verses show is that God was emphasizing His power to predict the future, the very power the “Second Isaiah” theorists would deny Him!

As if this wasn’t enough, there is also evidence that “Second Isaiah’ was not composed in Babylon, but in Palestine, using the evidence of local geography, plants and animals.  For example, the trees mentioned, the cedar, cypress, and oak, are not found in Babylon, but are native to Palestine.

Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer states: “In view of all the foregoing evidence, it may fairly be said that it requires a far greater exercise of credulity to believe that Isaiah 40−66 was not written by the historical eighth-century Isaiah than to believe that it was. Judging from the internal evidence alone, even apart from the authority of the New Testament authors, a fair handling of the evidence can only lead to the conclusion that the same author was responsible for both sections and that no part of it was composed as late as the Exile.” [4]

But we can save all this research time by simply reading and believing the New Testament writers!: Matthew 12:17-18 quotes Isaiah 42:1 and attributes it to “Isaiah the prophet”.  He does the same in Matt: 3:3 with Is 40:3. Luke 3:4 quotes Isaiah 40:3-5 as “in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet” Acts 8:28 speaks of the Ethiopian official as reading “Isaiah the prophet”, specifically Is. 53:7-8. Romans 10:16 quotes Isaiah 53:1: “Isaiah saith” . Romans 10:20 does the same with Isaiah 65:1.

But all you really need to know to answer this whole question is found in John 12:38-41: ” That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake; Lord who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord been revealed? [quoting Isaiah 53:1]  Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, he hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. {quoting Isaiah 6:10]  These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.”

So all you really needed to answer this question was found in John12:38-41!  The Lord wanted to save us hundreds of hours of library research and the time it took to write out all the other evidence in this article!  His Word truly anticipates every attack against it.  “Deutero-Isaiah” is simply a creation of skeptics who just can’t bring themselves to believe that God has the power to predict the future.  Imagine that!

[1] Archer, Gleason, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, Updated and Revised Edition, 1994, page 382.

[2] Ibid., p. 382-383.

[3] Ibid., p.383.

[4] Ibid., p. 390

Photo credit:Copyright: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/profile_profotokris’>profotokris / 123RF Stock Photo</a>