Bible Commentaries
Isaiah

IX

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH PART I – AN INTRODUCTION

Helps Commended: (1) Sampey’s Syllabus. (2) "Bible Commentary." (3) "Pulpit Commentary." (4) Urquhart’s "Biblical Guide," Vols. VI and VII. (5) Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible – Article, "Isaiah." (6) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. (7) Isaiah One and His Book One, Douglas. (8) A Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Crockett.

Of Isaiah’s personal life we know almost nothing. His name means "the salvation of Jehovah," and it was not uncommon, since several others bore the same name. It was of singular appropriateness in this case because it was "the salvation of Jehovah" which he was commissioned to preach. He has rightly been called "the evangelical prophet," and he ranks with such luminaries as. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Elijah, and Elisha. Yet, neither he nor his personal concerns are obtruded upon our notice. We have to search for hints and indications, and it is only when we have pondered these that the manner of the man is revealed to us. In his literary productions we find the evidence of a high type of culture. He, in all probability, was a product of the schools of the prophets and, undoubtedly, he was by far the best educated of all the prophets. He was one of the greatest personalities of his time, and no one can fail to see the deep devotion, the wholehearted consecration, and the richly endowed nature of the man.

Of his family we have a few hints. His father’s name was Amoz, not Amos, the prophet, whose name differs from Amoz, both in its initial and in its final letter. Amoz, according to Jewish tradition, was a brother of King Amaziah, but this tradition is hardly to be credited, since it would make Isaiah too old. Isaiah was married, and his wife is known as "the prophetess," perhaps meaning only that she was the wife of a prophet. Isaiah tells us that he had two sons, She-ar-jashub and Ma-her-shal-al-hash-baz, the first named being the elder of the two by many years.

There is a tradition of the rabbis that Isaiah lived to the reign of Manasseh and then suffered a most horrible martyrdom. Isaiah, having resisted the wicked acts of Manasseh, was seized by his orders, placed between two planks, and killed by being "sawn asunder." This mode of punishment is mentioned in Hebrews 11:37, and perhaps alludes to Isaiah’s fate. This tradition was accepted as authentic by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome, and Augustine, and is likely true.

As to his character, we can certainly say that he was uncompromising in his attitude toward all four of the ungodly "kings with whom his ministry had to do, with respect to all that bears upon religion. He was frank in dealing with the evils of his day, concealing nothing and keeping back nothing in order to court favor. He was unscrupulous in his treatment of his adversaries, denouncing in the strongest terms their injustice, their oppression, their grasping covetousness, their sensuality, their pride, and their haughtiness. He was sympathetic toward all nations in their calamities and sufferings, rejoicing in their prosperity and in their admission into the kingdom of the Messiah. He was sarcastic enough when the occasion demanded it. -He was profoundly religious, manifesting a deep devotion, a spiritual reverence and wholehearted ’consecration) rarely found in any man.

Isaiah’s official position was historiographer at the Hebrew court during the reigns of Jotham and Hezekiah, a good position, admitting him to familiar intercourse with the Jewish monarchs and indicating that his dwelling place was Jerusalem. In this capacity he wrote an account of the reign of Uzziah and also one of the reign of Hezekiah which accounts were embodied in the book of the Kings, and perhaps, he wrote the history of the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz also, though the record does not say so. But his main office was that of prophet, preacher, psalmist, instructor, intercessor, evangelist, and apocalyptic seer. His book of prophecies is the only literary work of his that has come down to us, besides those parts of his histories which were selected by inspiration for our books of Kings and Chronicles.

Of his call to the prophetic office we have no record, unless we so regard the call recorded in Isaiah 6 of his prophecy. But this can hardly be regarded as his initial call, since there is no sufficient reason for his postponing the account of such an event, to this point, if it had been his first call. The reason for this vision here at this particular point seems to be that the dark picture of the first five chapters necessitated a vision of the powers operating above, just as in John’s case when he had seen the great imperfections of the "seven churches" of Asia. Jesus then showed him the powers working over and in these imperfect churches to accomplish God’s purpose to light the world through the churches, though they were very poor prospects for such a task from the human point of view. According to this view, Isaiah’s initial call is left unrecorded, as in the case of so many of the other prophets.

Isaiah tells us that his prophetic career extended over the reigns of four kings, viz: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, which is admitted to have been one of unusual duration. We do not know how many years of Uzziah’s reign it included but we have evidence that his work extended far into the reign of Hezekiah, and, perhaps, through it or beyond it. If then we allow two years for his work in Uzziah’s reign, sixteen years for Jotham’s reign, sixteen years for Ahaz’s reign, and twenty-nine years for Hezekiah’s reign, we have a period of sixty-three years for his prophetic work. It may have been longer than this but it could not have been very much shorter. In such an extension of one man’s service there must have been more than what one might describe as "the happy chance of a long life," for in divine arrangements there are no chances. The purpose of it is obvious, as the period in which the prophet served and the character of his work suggest. Isaiah is the Moses of Israel’s new era. This is a crisis in the history of God’s people, just as at the time of Elijah and Elisha. Then the nation was threatened with destruction. So in the time of Isaiah, and in order that God’s people might be guided, and that even the darkest heart might understand, the prophet called for by the crisis of the hour was provided, and his ministry was so prolonged and so glorious as to challenge and to fix the attention of many generations.

There were certain antecedent events in the history of Israel which culminated in the crisis of Uzziah. First, in Solomon’s time intercourse, which had been suspended with Egypt for about four hundred years, was renewed, which led very soon to a violation of the law (see 1 Kings 4:26; Deuteronomy 17:16; Isaiah 2:7; Isaiah 31:1) and was rapidly followed by disastrous consequences. Solomon lived to see his bitter enemies, Jeroboam and Hadad, welcomed at the court of Pharaoh, and the next generation not only saw a king of Egypt capture Jerusalem and despoil the Temple and the palace, but they witnessed the establishment of Apis worship over the whole of the Northern Kingdom, in the form of Jeroboam’s "calves of Dan and Bethel."

Secondly, the descent from this was easy, and not more than sixty years from the division of the Kingdom, another and more decided form of apostasy was introduced into Samaria by Ahab’s fantastical queen, the Sidonian Jezebel, which was afterward carried to Jerusalem by her daughter, Athaliah. This very much endangered both nations and it seemed that the hope of the cause of truth and holiness had vanished, and a pall of gloom overshadowed both kingdoms. But the battle was not over, for at this terrible crisis came Elijah and Elisha who turned back the tide of sin, but their victory was not complete, for of one king after another in the Northern Kingdom it was said, "From after the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, he departed not."

Thirdly, this easy descent was followed until the prosperous reign of Jeroboam II, when the awful sentence was pronounced, "Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone," and about this time, or just before, Joel was directed to proclaim that the "day of the Lord" was drawing near, and that it was "great and very terrible." From this time the spiritual decline was marked, notwithstanding the many threatenings from the Lord, though the nation was prosperous in many ways, temporarily. Uzziah’s heart was lifted up with pride, which is the taproot of infidelity. He had respect toward the traditional religion, but he was without faith or real devotion. At last the secret unbelief broke out into a deed of extreme audacity, unequaled since the days of Korah. Uzziah went into the holy place and insisted that he had the right to burn incense. The punishment followed immediately and it was signal. Uaaiah was smitten with leprosy and was isolated in a "several house," excluded from society to the day of his death. Such are some of the most important antecedent events which culminated in the crisis of Uzziah.

Thus the monarch was stricken, but the people were no less criminal than the king, and they, too, must be put away from communion with the Holy One, whom they had rejected. That is the proposition with which Isaiah had to deal at the opening of his ministry. So he brought to Judah God’s final offers of mercy, set before them the fearful consequences of continued impenitence, told them of the intent of the law and the worthlessness of an imposing ritual without the love of God, and he promised full and free pardon with all the covenant blessings, if only they would repent and obey. But the offer was rejected and the prophet received a new commission to them, viz: the judicial sentence, dooming the nation to exile and the land to desolation.

While this was righteous retribution, it was a measure of mercy as well. For by this means holy love was working out its gracious design. While the ban was uttered the execution was stayed by the zeal and piety of the faithful remnant, the "holy seed." Through the prophet good Hezekiah and his people turned to God with decision and uprightness and the power of Assyria was not allowed to touch Judah. In this crisis of danger, when the nation seemed to be in its last gasp, Isaiah performed for it the office which Moses had performed of old, that of intercessor, and a deliverance was granted them, second in importance only to that original deliverance from Egypt. This is the outward seal of the first cycle of his prophecies, viz: Isaiah 1-39.

The prophet shows us the world full of sin and enveloped in gross darkness, whose inhabitants are the lawful captives and prey of the terrible one. Selfishness, greed, and oppression crush the helpless. Covetousness joins house to house and lays field to field until the poor have no room for homes. Debauchees rise up early in the morning to follow strong drink and sit up late at night to inflame themselves with wine. Their fame is to be expert in mixing strong liquors and to be mighty in drinking them. The wicked draw iniquity with cords of falsehood and sin as with a cart rope. They put darkness for light and light for darkness. Repudiating all modesty and humility for inordinate conceit, they become wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight. Justice, righteousness, and equity are outlawed. Hell enlarges its desire and opens its mouth without measure. Even the chosen nation has become a brood of vipers, formalists, hypocrites, thieves, and robbers. Chastisement has vainly beaten them. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. There is no room to place another stroke. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it. Only wounds and bruises and putrefying sores. The land is desolate, and the people, perishing for lack of knowledge grope and shudder under the shadow of death.

There are two facts which show this to be a remarkable epoch, whether as regards Israel or the world at large:

1. The historical event standing in the center of the book, viz: the destruction of Sennacherib’s army took place 710 B.C., which is exactly midway between Israel’s complete occupation of Canaan (1445 B.C.) and John the Baptist’s announcement that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (A.D. 25). Then if we bisect the interval between the first erection of the tabernacle at Sinai (1490 B.C. and the burning of the Temple in A.D. 70), the middle point will fall again on the year 710 B.C.

2. This same year, 710 B.C., is also the starting point of a great political movement in the Gentile world. In that year the foundation of the Median monarchy was laid in a very singular manner, viz: Deioces was elected king by the free choice of the Median tribes, on account of his reputation for justice. This occurred soon after Shalmaneser had placed a portion of the Israelitish captives in the cities of the Medes. Is there not a connection between these two facts? At any rate the rise of the Median kingdom was one of the most influential events in ancient history. To it, in a large measure, is attributable the overthrow of Nineveh, the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus and the establishment of the Medo-Persian Empire, whose influence on the later history of Asia and Europe is incalculable.

The canonical prophets who preceded Isaiah were Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, and Amos; his contemporaries were Hosea, in the Northern Kingdom and Micah, in the Southern Kingdom. Sampey says:

Isaiah’s prophetic ministry covered the stirring period during which Assyria, under the leadership of Pul, Shalmaneser IV, Sargon, and Sennacherib, repeatedly invaded Syria and Palestine. From his watch-tower Isaiah surveyed the nations, from Assyria and Elam on the east to Egypt and Ethiopia on the southwest, and Jehovah asserted by the mouth of His prophet, His sovereignty over all the earth.

As a writer, Isaiah transcends all the other Hebrew prophets. With a lofty and majestic calmness, a grandeur and dignity of expression, an energy and liveliness of style, he admirably adapts his language to his subject matter, employing striking images, dramatic representations, pointed antitheses, play upon words, strong utterances, vivid description, amplification and elaboration here and there, wherever needed. Hengstenberg says, "His style is simple, and sublime; in imagery, intermediate between the poverty of Jeremiah and the exuberance of Ezekiel."

The book of Isaiah, as it has come down to us, presents a certain composite character. There are three main parts of it. The first thirty-five chapters, almost wholly prophetic, are followed by four chapters which are historical, and the last twenty-seven chapters are like the first part, prophetical. There is a marked contrast in subject matter and style, and the different sections into which each of these parts divides itself show that they are compilations rather than continuous and connected compositions. The general arrangement of the book seems to be chronological. The form of the first and third sections is largely poetical parallelism, with, however, a freedom unshackled by undue restrictions. The book as a whole is one of the most remarkable and important in the sacred volume. All agree in extolling its power, beauty, and attractiveness and acknowledge its commanding moral and spiritual eminence. Even in bulk it is very important. Jeremiah is the largest, Ezekiel is a little larger than Isaiah, while the twelve minor prophets, taken together, are considerably shorter than Isaiah.

In order to be able to rightly interpret Isaiah the student should be familiar with the following:

1. The history of God’s people in general up to the times of Isaiah. In setting forth the kingly and priestly character of our Lord Isaiah ranges over the whole field of the earlier Scriptures, referring, not only to the several books of the Pentateuch, but to the historical books, the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and the writings of the earlier prophets. So he, who is most conversant with these earlier Scriptures, has the best key for opening the great prophecy before us, and will enter with the profoundest appreciation of the references and allusions which are made to it in the New Testament.

2. The history of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, as given in Crockett’s Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (pp. 293-329). This gives the history of the times in which, and the peoples to whom, he prophesied.

3. The history of all the foreign nations mentioned in his prophecies: Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, Moab, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Edom, Arabia, and Phoenicia. There may be found a fairly good article on each of these nations in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.

A very simple outline of the book of Isaiah, by Dr. Sampey, is the following:

Introduction: Title, Author, and Date, Isaiah 1:1.

I. Prophecies of Judgment, Isaiah 1:2-35:10:

1. Book of Mingled Rebukes and Promises, Isaiah 1:2-6:13;

2. Book of Immanuel, Isaiah 7-12;

3. Book of Foreign Prophecies, Isaiah 13-23;

4. First Book of Judgment, Isaiah 24-27;

5. Book of Zion, or Book of Woes, Isaiah 28-33;

6. Second Book of Judgment, Isaiah 34-35.

II. Historical Interlude, Isaiah 36-39:

1. Sennacherib’s Invasion, Isaiah 36-37;

2. Hezekiah’s Sickness and Embassy from Babylon, Isaiah 38-39.

III. Prophecies of Peace, Isaiah 40-66:

1. Theology – The Purpose of Peace, Isaiah 40-48;

2. Soteriology – The Prince of Peace, Isaiah 49-57;

3. Eschatology – The Program of Peace, Isaiah 58-66.

The last twenty-seven chapters of the book constitute one grand messianic poem, subdivided into three books, the first and the second closing each with the solemn refrain, "There is no peace, saith Jehovah, to the wicked," and the third expressing the thought more fully, "Their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Each of these books consists of three sections of three chapters each, Isaiah 53 thus becoming the middle chapter of the middle book of this great prophetic poem, the very heart of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. And the central verses (Isaiah 53:5-8) of this central chapter enshrines the central truth of the gospel: He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement of our peace was upon him; And with his stripes we are healed. (Read also verses 6-8.)

There are five passages in the book itself which indicate the time of the prophecies of the book in general and its several parts in particular, viz: Isaiah 1:1; Isaiah 6:1; Isaiah 7:1; Isaiah 14:28; Isaiah 36:1. The first verse seems to imply that some portion of the book is to be allotted to each of the four reigns there mentioned. This, combined with the indications of time contained in the above named passages, leads to the following general distribution of Isaiah’s prophecies:

1. In the reign of Uzziah (Isaiah 1-5)

2. In the reign of Jotham (Isaiah 6)

3. In the reign of Ahaz (Isaiah 7:1-14:27)

4. In the first half of Hezekiah’s reign (Isaiah 14:28-39:8)

5. In the second half of Hezekiah’s reign (Isaiah 40-66) The above outline is what the way marks, set up by the prophet himself, seem to point to, with which also the internal evidence is in accord.

In Sampey’s Syllabus may be found a most excellent analysis for the more minute divisions of the book, in which are hints as to dates, doctrines, criticisms, etc.

QUESTIONS

1. Who was Isaiah and what of his family?

2. What the tradition concerning his death?

3. What can you say of his character?

4. What his official position and what literary works did he write?

5. What of the call of Isaiah to his prophetic office?

6. What the length of his prophetic career and what its special significance?

7. What the preceding events in the history of Israel which culminated in the crisis of Uzziah?

8. What the national crisis in Uzziah’s time and what was Israel’s relation to it?

9. What the moral conditions of the world at this time?

10. What can you say of this period in the world’s history?

11. What canonical prophets preceded Isaiah, what ones were contemporary with him and what foreign relations at this time?

12. What can you say of the style and diction of the book of Isaiah?

13. What can you say of the character of the book as it has come down to us?

14. What should a student Study in order to rightly interpret Isaiah?

15. Give an analysis of the book of Isaiah.

16. What the artistic features of the third part of the book?

17. What dates indicated in the book itself and according to these, what the time of each part thus indicated?

18. Where may the student find an extended and detailed analysis of Isaiah?

X

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH PART 2 – THE AUTHORSHIP

The question of "two Isaiahs" was not mentioned, or thought of, until the twelfth century A.D., when Aben-Ezra, a Jew of naturalistic tendencies, first ventured to suggest that the prophecies of Isaiah 40-66 might not be the actual work of Isaiah. Previous to this date and again from his time to near the close of the eighteenth century, not a breath of suspicion was uttered; not a whisper on the subject was heard. The book of Psalms was known to be composite and the book of Proverbs bore on its face that it consisted of, at least, four collections, but Isaiah was universally accepted as a work of one author. Toward the close of the eighteenth century Koppe, a German writer, in his translation of Bishop Lowth’s Isaiah adopted the suggestion of Aben-Ezra, and thus was started the theory that Isaiah was not the real author of the prophecies contained in chapters 40-66 of the book ascribed to him. The work of an entirely different prophet, living toward the close of the Captivity, he said, had been attached by some accident to the genuine prophecies of Isaiah and had thenceforth passed by his name. The theory thus started was welcomed by other Germans of the rationalistic school and shortly it could boast of many renowned scholars, including the great Hebraist, Gesenius. The simple theory of "two Isaiahs" thus started, an earlier and a later, one contemporary with Hezekiah, the other with the later captivity, whose works had been accidentally thrown together, has been elaborated and expanded, chiefly by the labors of Ewald, in a wonderful way. Ewald traces in the book of Isaiah, as it has come down to us, the work of at least seven hands. Nor did it reach the final outcome of the separatist hypothesis started by Koppe, in the theory of Ewald. It has gone on until now they say that the whole book of Isaiah, first and last, is a mosaic, or patchwork, the production of no one knows how many authors, brought gradually to its present condition. However, it is consoling to note that along beside this school of the "radicals" runs the long line of defenders of the integrity of the book. In this list may be mentioned, to their everlasting credit, many of the greater lights, like Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Dean Payne Smith, and a host of the lesser lights.

It is amazing to learn that, in the last analysis, the original and sole ground of this critical attack is the infidel assumption that prediction is an impossibility. It is quite true that other reasons are assigned but they are afterthoughts. Isaiah’s authorship of one portion and another was, and is, denied on the ground that Isaiah could not have foreseen the events which these portions describe. This is summed up under two heads: (1) that the author of Isaiah 40-66 takes for his standpoint the time of the Babylonian captivity, and, speaking as if that were present, from thence looks forward into the subsequent future; (2) that he has a knowledge of the name and career of Cyrus, which a prophet living two centuries before could not possibly have had. The theory was subsequently further supported by alleged differences between the style and diction of Isaiah 1-39 and Isaiah 40-66, which were declared to necessitate different authors, and to mark Isaiah 40-66 as the production of a later age. It is now, as never before, conceded that there is nothing in the contention that it is a point of philology, but that prophecy does not have anything to do with the supernatural, though some of the critics state the philological argument as corroborative evidence (see Driver’s argument and the reply thereto in Sampey’s Syllabus).

It was soon found that the theory could not stop with the last part of the book, for there were predictions of the fall of Babylon, of the most definite kind (Isaiah 13; 14; 21). These then must, in consistence, also be taken away from Isaiah. But it was observed that Isaiah 34 had many verbal resemblances to Isaiah 13, and that Isaiah 35 was almost a miniature of the second part. Consequently, these must also be removed. Following up this method they have come at last to assign the following, to which most of the objectors agree, to Isaiah: Isaiah 1-12; 14:24-32; 15-20; 21:11-17; 22-23; 2833, and the rest of the book they say was written by four or five unknown prophets, living in Babylon near the end of the captivity, who were worthy of having their productions associated with those of Isaiah, yet of whose names and of whose existence even, no trace whatever has been preserved. A thing unthinkable!

The assumption of the radical critics, viz: that it is inconceivable that God should communicate to man any foreknowledge, or pre-vision, of future events, let us consider in the light of the following facts:

1. Isaiah did undoubtedly, in the acknowledged chapters, predict in the most clear and positive terms the future desolation of the land (see Isaiah 3:8; Isaiah 3:25-26; Isaiah 5:13-14; Isaiah 5:17; Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 6:11-12; Isaiah 7:23-25; Isaiah 17:9; Isaiah 32:13-14).

2. Isaiah, in the unquestioned chapters, distinctly foretold that Assyria, after sweeping like a flood over Samaria, would bring Judah into the utmost peril of a like catastrophe, but would be buried back and be overthrown (see Isaiah 8:7-8; Isaiah 10:5-34), the fulfilment of which is well known.

3. Whoever the writer of Isaiah 41-48 was, he claimed the right of speaking in God’s name about the distant future. This claim is put prominently forward, is urged repeatedly, is elaborately asserted as a proof of divine prescience, and is made the crucial test of Jehovah’s being the only true God, seeing that prevision of a remote contingent, future event is possible only to him who both knows, and can control, all the antecedents of the event (see Isaiah 41:21; Isaiah 42:9; Isaiah 43:9-10; Isaiah 44:7-8; Isaiah 44:24-28; Isaiah 45:1-13; Isaiah 45:20-21; Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 48:3-8; Isaiah 48:12-16).

4. It is undeniable that the great prophecy in Isaiah 52-53 had a unique realization in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. This dictum is at variance with the whole course of the history of redemption from its commencement to its consummation. Starting with the first promise of the Saviour in Genesis 3:15 and coming on down through the whole series of divine revelations of the Messiah as the hope of the world, one cannot escape the impression that the historical fact of the prophetic Christ is too firmly rooted in the world’s history to be ignored, against which the groundless assertions of naturalism are powerless.

The naming of Cyrus was the earliest objection to the genuineness of the book of Isaiah, but there is not so much made of this at present as formerly. They say, "Of course God could have foretold the name of Cyrus one hundred and fifty years or more beforehand, but this would have been against his way of acting." Now let us see whether the revelation of a name beforehand is against God’s manner of acting. The recorded instances which offset this theory are, Ishmael, Isaac, Josiah,. Jesus, John the Baptist, and Isaiah’s own son. If it be urged that these are names of persons who were soon to be born, and very different from that of the case of Cyrus, it may be answered that the length of time may have been unknown to Isaiah. Besides, in the case of Josiah there was a longer time than in that of Cyrus. The time element is a very poor escape for an objection. If God foreknows an event, it does not matter as to the length of time. A thousand years are to him as one day, and it is Just as reasonable that he should foretell an event or give a name two thousand years beforehand as it is that he should announce the name of a child to be born one year hence.

In Sampey’s Syllabus we have Driver’s three independent lines of argument which he says converge to show that the last twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the work of Isaiah, as follows:

First, the argument from the analogy of prophecy; second, the literary style is different from that of Isaiah; third, the theological ideas differ from those found in Isaiah 1-39.

According to Driver, the prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his contemporaries. The prophet never abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it. Now the author of Isaiah 40-66 alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined, to the sufferings of the Jewish captives among the Chaldeans, to the prospect of an early return to Judah. The author speaks not to the contemporaries of Hezekiah, but to Jewish exiles in the days of Cyrus. Therefore he must have lived in the days of Cyrus.

We cannot admit the fundamental axiom of Dr. Driver for it not only begs the whole question, but also contradicts the teaching of an inspired apostle. Cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12, especially 1 Peter 1:12. Dr. Driver’s statement, though containing much truth, is too broad. Though put forward as a general principle arrived at by inductive reasoning, it is seemingly opposed by Isaiah 13:2-14:23; 24-27; 34; 35; 40-66. Then he says that the vocabulary is different, many words occurring in Isaiah 40-66 that are not found in the undisputed prophecies of Isaiah (e.g., "My chosen," "praise," both as a verb and substitute, "pleasure," "good will," etc.). Besides, many words occur frequently, and often with different shades of meaning, which are found only once or twice in the undisputed prophecies (e.g., "isles," "nought," "to create," etc.). Moreover, certain words and idioms occurring in Isaiah 40-66 point to a later period of the language than Isaiah’s age. On the other hand, the undisputed prophecies of Isaiah use repeatedly certain expressions which are never found in Isaiah 40-66, and certain other phrases that occur quite seldom.

While Dr. Driver has shown great skill in the selection of words and phrases, his list is too small to count for much, and it can be counterbalanced by a list of striking words and phrases that are common to Isaiah 1-39 and Isaiah 40-66. (Most recent critics assign but little force to this argument from vocabulary.)

His style argument from the grammatical peculiarities is as follows: Isaiah 40-66 employ a participial epithet with the divine name quite often (Isaiah 40:28; Isaiah 42:5, etc.). The relative particle is more frequently omitted than in the undisputed sections.

It may be well to remember that one’s style may be somewhat modified after the lapse of years, and that a polished and elaborate composition intended only to be read may differ from brief notes of public discourses.

His style argument, based on the rhetorical repetition of words (Isaiah 40:1; Isaiah 43:11, etc.) may be answered as follows: Here again let us bear in mind the literary leisure with which this finished production was wrought out. Moreover, Isaiah 1-39 have examples of repetition, Isaiah 1:9-10 (Sodom and Gomorrah); Isaiah 2:9-17 (brought low); Isaiah 29:1 (Ariel, Ariel); Isaiah 21:11 (Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?)

For the items of his style argument from the literary features and for his theological argument see Sampey’s Syllabus. As to external, or historical, evidence of the unity of Isaiah, it is not pretended by anyone that there is anywhere the slightest trace of doubt existing on the subject in ancient times, the evidence of which is all one way. Now, I will give a few of the items of this evidence:

1. The second part of Isaiah is referred to by the son of Sirach as a distinctive portion of Isaiah, 220-180 B.C. (See Eccl. 48:22-25.)

2. In the Jewish canon, in the Septuagint and in all other ancient versions the book is one whole.

3. Thirteen of the Haftarah’s, or Prophetic Lessons, read in the synagogues on sabbath days, fesitvals, and fasts were taken from the second part of the book of Isaiah. This arrangement dates 170 B.C.

4. Josephus mentions it as a received tradition among the Jews and Cyrus issued his edict for the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezekiel 1:2) after he had been shown Isaiah’s prophecy respecting himself (see Josephus Jewish Antiquities XI. 1). This statement is strongly confirmed by the edict itself: "The Lord God of heaven . . . hath charged me to build, etc." This is the only way Cyrus’ language can be accounted for.

5. All the Jewish authorities refer constantly to part two as Isaiah’s. Indeed for two thousand and four hundred years, with one exception, no one is known to have hinted at the possibility of a doubt on the subject,

There are several Old Testament quotations from the book of Isaiah which bear upon the question of the unity of the book:

1. Zephaniah 2:15 is a quotation of Isaiah 47:8; Isaiah 47:10. But Zephaniah wrote in the reign of Josiah, between 630 B.C. and 625 B.C., while Judah was still a kingdom. The words, "I am, and there is none beside me," are identical in the Hebrew of both passages.

2. Nahum 1:15 is a quotation of Isaiah 52:7. The reader will here note the identical expressions in the two passages. Here, as in the preceding case the fact of quotation is undoubted. But Nahum lived not long after Isaiah. Therefore "the second Isaiah" was in existence shortly after the close of Isaiah’s ministry, and was recognized as a part of the Scriptures.

3. Jeremiah 31:35 is a quotation of Isaiah 51:15. Here again the resemblance is too marked to be treated as accidental. The connection in both passages is similar and the correspondences are strikingly impressive. If it be suggested that "the second Isaiah" may have quoted from Jeremiah, let it be also remembered that the "Great Unknown," the "Deutero-Isaiah" and one of the so-called "assured results" of higher criticism, has never been regarded by any one of their school as being poor in imagination, or deficient in language, but in both of these respects he has been assigned the noblest place in all the prophetic band. But the words are in Isaiah’s style and the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Jeremiah’s quoting Isaiah rather than Isaiah’s quoting Jeremiah.

There are nine quotations: from the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah in the New Testament, as follows: Matthew 3:3; Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:17; Luke 3:4; Luke 4:17; John 1:23; John 12:38; Acts 8:28 and Romans 10:16-20. The bearing of these quotations on the question of the unity of Isaiah resolves itself into the question of New Testament inspiration. If we grant the inspiration of the New Testament, then this nine fold witness is final and proves that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name.

There are two New Testament references to the book of Isaiah in which they clearly include the second part, viz: Luke 4:17 and Acts 8:30-34. These are distinct references to the book of Isaiah as the passages clearly show and indicate that there was no thought in New Testament times of a mosaic, or patchwork, Isaiah.

There are many links that bind Parts 1 and 2 together but we will give only a few to show the line of argument. Compare the following references from the undisputed parts of the first thirty-nine chapters with the reference in the last twenty-seven Isaiah 1:11; Isaiah 1:13 with Isaiah 66:3; Isaiah 6:1 with Isaiah 57:15 and Isaiah 66:1; Isaiah 66:5-7 with Isaiah 57:15 and Isaiah 66:2; Isaiah 2:2-3 with Isaiah 56:7 and Isaiah 60:12-14; Isaiah 2:11; Isaiah 2:17 and Isaiah 5:15-16 with Isaiah 40:4; Isaiah 5:19; Isaiah 14:24; Isaiah 14:27; Isaiah 19:12; Isaiah 23:8-9 and Isaiah 28:29 with Isaiah 40:13-14; Isaiah 44:26; Isaiah 46:10; Isaiah 59:9 and Isaiah 64:4, and so on. (For an extended list of these connecting -links between the two parts of Isaiah see "Bible Commentary," pp. 15-18.) These instances with the many others cited in the list referred to, are irreconcilable with the contention for the dual authorship of the book of Isaiah, and prove beyond question that one author wrote both parts, which constitute a closely woven garment, the threads of each part running into the other, making them both a compact, literary, historical, theological unit.

Here the question naturally arises, Why were the historical episodes in Isaiah 36-39 introduced just here? The answer is obvious. In Isaiah 36-37 we see Jerusalem besieged and a strong enemy judged, and we see the godly in Israel overwhelmed, but clinging to God for help. Let us remember that the object of these last chapters is to console and we have the obvious typical significance of these historical facts. They furnish a historical starting point for the men of Isaiah’s time, and a historical background to our own time, and are of immense importance to both. Isaiah 38 tells of Hezekiah’s sickness and miraculous recovery, which led to a political alliance in which God’s counsel was not sought, and to the captivity in Babylon as shown in Isaiah 39. So Isaiah 36-37 form a starting point and a background for the consolations, and Isaiah 38-39 show why the consolations are needed. In the order of events here we see Judah delivered from Assyria and having a revival, after which it stumbled again, to trust in the arm of flesh and to go to the old pollution of conformity to a godless world around, which again points to Babylon. Thus the account, from the entry of Sennacherib upon the historical stage to Isaiah’s prediction of the exile to Hezekiah, is all the real beginning of the second part of the book. So when we read Isaiah 39, the last vestige of the critics’ case vanishes.

It is urged that in Isaiah 40-66 the prophet occupies a Babylonian viewpoint, but already in Isaiah 39 we have the Babylonian viewpoint. Here we are confronted with the incidents of the exile. We see the young Judaic princes, "eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." Could the prophet stop here? Would he not have a message for Judah as it stood before the lifted veil? Yea, the first Isaiah had here gone too far not to become the second Isaiah.

And this is not all. Hezekiah has already had his peaceful end. He has received his consolation, but the people of the captivity are in gloom and despair. So Jehovah bursts forth in the opening verse of the second part, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people." The closing words of Isaiah 39 make the opening words of Isaiah 40 a necessity. Radical criticism has never so certainly and fully sealed its own final condemnation as when it ventured to draw its great dividing line between the close of Isaiah 39 and the opening of Isaiah 40.

QUESTIONS

1. Give a brief statement of the rise & progress of the adverse criticism of the book of Isaiah.

2. What the ground of this disintegration theory?

3. What the progress of this theory as it relates to the first part of the book and what sections of it do these radicals attribute to Isaiah?

4. How does the assumption of the radical critics, viz: that it is inconceivable that God should communicate to man any foreknowledge, or prevision, of future events, correspond with facts?

5. How does the radical critic theory respecting the naming of Cyrus correspond with the facts of revelation?

6, What are Driver’s three independent lines of argument which he says converge to show that the last twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the work of Isaiah?

7. What Driver’s argument from the analogy of prophecy and what the reply?

8. What Driver’s style argument based on the vocabulary and what the reply?

9. What his style argument from the grammatical peculiarities and what reply?

10. What his style argument from the rhetorical repetition of words & reply?

11. What the items of his style argument from the literary features and what the reply to each seriatim?

12. What the external, or historical, evidence of the unity of Isaiah?

13. What the Old Testament quotations from this book and what their bearing on the unity of Isaiah?

14. What the New Testament quotations of the last twenty-seven chapters of the book of Isaiah and what their bearing on this question?

15. What the New Testament references to the book of Isaiah in which they clearly include the second part?

16. What the argument for the unity of Isaiah based upon the close relation of the parts of the book?

17. What the argument for the unity of Isaiah based upon the position of the historical part of the book?

I

INTRODUCTION – THE PROPHETS IN GENERAL

We now take up a new section of the Old Testament which, according to Hebrew classification of the books, is called the Later Prophets.

The literature on this section is abundant but largely radical in its nature. Therefore it is most difficult to find books on this section which we can commend to an English Bible student. Generally speaking, the old commentaries are safe but the student may read most of the modern books on the prophets with discrimination.

For the background there are two books which should be studied carefully. First, Wood’s Hebrew Monarchy, which is the best of its kind, since it not only gives a fine harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, but also inserts the pertinent passages from the Psalms and the prophets in their chronological order. Second, Crockett’s Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, which is much more convenient than Wood’s Hebrew Monarchy, because of its size. This we use as a textbook in our studies of the Hebrew monarchy and the divided kingdom. In most instances the author accepts the chronology of this work by Crockett.

As to the commentaries, there are many among the older ones which are excellent, but only a few may be mentioned here.

First, the expository part of "The Pulpit Commentary" is generally sound and good. Second, the "Bible Commentary" is excellent, especially its introductions. It is conservative and practical for the average student of the English Bible, though its notes on archaeology are not up to date. Third, Hengstenberg is one of the author’s favorites. He is scholarly and conservative. Fourth, Pusey on the minor prophets is the best. He is also scholarly and conservative. Fifth, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s commentary is a good, brief, critical commentary.

Among the later writers on the prophets might be mentioned as valuable, Orelli’s Old Testament Prophecy, Elliott’s Old Testament Prophecy, Delitzsch’s Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession and Beecher’s The Prophets and the Promise. Others will be named in connection with some of the books in this INTERPRETATION.

This period extends from Samuel to Malachi, a period of over seven hundred years. The special mission of the prophetic order was to serve as a counterpoise to the despotism of the monarch and to the formalism in the priest. A study of the history of this period reveals a strong tendency toward Oriental despotism on the part of the monarch and a very great degeneracy on the part of the priesthood. The immediate work of the prophet was to check the tendency to despotism on the part of the monarch by being God’s mouthpiece to the king, and to counteract the degeneracy of the priesthood by becoming the speakers for God, and to be the religious instructors of the people.

The word "prophet" is derived from a Greek word which is a translation of the Hebrew and means "bubbling over." The Creek word is prophetes, which is derived from the Greek pro and phanai, meaning "to speak for," i.e., to speak for another. So, etymologically the word, in its parts, expresses the following ideas: Pro means (1) "beforehand," (2) "in public," (3) "in behalf of," or "for"; phanai means "to speak." Hence the etymological meaning, "to speak for" or to speak for another. Therefore a prophet is "one who speaks to men, on behalf of God, the message he has received from God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." The message may relate to the past, present, or future, according to the principles of inspiration. If it relates to the future it is called predictive prophecy.

The words used for "prophet" are as follows:

(1) The Hebrew word nabhi the most common word in Hebrew for prophet, means a "speaker." The word of God came to the prophet and he spoke it to men. See Jeremiah 1:2; Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3 et multa al.

(2) A common word for "prophet" in the days of Samuel was ro’eh, which means a "seer," and is used to express the vision, insight, and foresight of the prophet. See 1 Samuel 9:9.

(3) The Hebrew word chozeh was used for an authoritative messenger, who received supernatural visions and so, was called a "seer." See Amos 1:1; Isaiah 1:1; Obadiah 1:1; Nehemiah 1:1.

(4) Several other terms were used to designate the prophet, such as "man of God," "servant of Jehovah," "messenger of Jehovah," et al.

The psychological process in the inspiration of the prophet is stated very clearly by Dr. Sampey, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as follows:

The canonical prophets claimed to be under the influence of the Spirit of God. Their message was from Jehovah. We cannot understand fully the psychology of the prophets when inspired. Their mental processes were stimulated and guided by the Spirit, who clothed them with power. Imagination, memory, and reason were no doubt heightened, as well as intuition and spiritual insight. The Spirit of God chose proper men for his purpose, and then turned to account all their powers. The mind of the prophet perhaps varied from the extreme of trance and ecstasy all the way to a quiet thoughtfulness over which the Holy Spirit preaided. Saul, wallowing on the ground under uncontrollable excitement, and Balaam, stalking forth with closed eyes to seek enchantments, are not fair specimens of prophets. The prophets had little in common with dancing and howling dervishes.

Many prophecies, or predictions, receive successive fulfilments, though there is a fulfilment higher and greater than all the rest. This we call the "perspective" of prophecy. In general, Orelli’s statement holds good: "A prophecy can only be regarded as fulfilled when the whole body of truth included in it has attained living realization."

1. The prophets before Moses and the biblical proof for each:

(1) Enoch (Judges 1:14 f.)

(2) Noah(2 Peter 2:5)

(3) Abraham and other patriarchs (Genesis 20:7; Genesis 27:27-29; 49)

2. The prophets in the age of Moses:

(1) Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18-22; Deuteronomy 34:10-12)

(2) Miriam and Aaron (Exodus 15:20; Num. 12)

(3) The seventy (Numbers 11:24-29)

(4) Balaam (Numbers 22-24)

(5) Joshua (Joshua 1; 23; 24)

3. The prophets in the period of the judges:

(1) Deborah (Judges 4-5)

(2) An unknown prophet in the days of Gideon (Judges 6:8)

(3) An unknown prophet in the days of Eli (1 Samuel 2:27-36).

4. The prophets from Samuel to the division of the kingdom:

(1) Samuel (1 Samuel 3:20, et al)

(2) Companies of prophets (1 Samuel 10:10-12; 1 Samuel 19:20-24)

(3) Gad (1 Samuel 22:5 et al)

(4) Nathan (2 Samuel 7-12)

(5) David (Psalms 110; 2; 22; Acts 2:30)

5. The prophets from the division of the kingdom to the time of Elijah:

(1) Ahijah of Shiloh (1 Kings 11:26-40)

(2) Man of God from Judah at Jeroboam’s altar (1 Kings 13:1)

(3) Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:21-24)

(4) Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 12:15)

(5) Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:1)

(6) Hanani {1 Chronicles 16:7-10)

(7) Jehu (2 Chronicles 19:1-3)

6. The prophets in the period of Elijah and Elisha:

(1) Elijah (1 Kings 17:1 -2 Kings 2-17)

(2) Micaiah (1 Kings 22:8)

(3) Unknown prophet (1 Kings 20)

(4) Jahaziel (2 Chronicles 20:14-17)

(5) Eliezer (2 Chronicles 20:37)

(6) Elisha (2 Kings 2-8)

There are three great periods of the canonical prophets, via: The Assyrian Period, the Chaldean Period, and the Persian Period. The canonical prophets are:

1. The Assyrian Period:

(1) Obadiah

(2) Joel

(3) Jonah

(4) Amos

(5) Hosea

(6) Isaiah

(7) Micah

(8) Nahum

2. The Chaldean Period:

(1) Zephaniah

(2) Habakkuk

(3) Jeremiah

(4) Ezekiel

(5) Daniel

3. The Persian Period:

(1) Haggai

(2) Zechariah

(3) Malachi

In the Assyrian period there appeared the schools of the prophets, Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, the man of God in 2 Chronicles 25:2-10, the nameless prophet of 2 Chronicles 25:15-16, another Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 26:5; then follows Oded and Huldah, the prophetess. In the Chaldean and Persian Periods the canonical prophets alone appear and fill the foreground of the picture while the false prophets fill the background.

There are three distinct elements for which a student of the prophets should look. The first element is the message to the prophet’s own age. In order to understand this message as it was for the people of their own age, the student must get the background thereof, or the conditions in which they lived. The second element is that of prediction, or things foretold. In considering these we will find that many of them were immediately fulfilled, that others were fulfilled later and that many still await fulfilment. The third element to be looked for is the living message to our own age. They spoke the will of God and uttered age-abiding principles which have application now as surely as when they were first spoken. For these the student of the prophets should carefully look.

Certain things should be remembered in a study of the prophets:

1. The standpoint of the prophet was always that of the sovereignty of God. There are many tones in the prophecies. There is much thunder, yet very much of tenderness, but always in obedience to the vision of an enthroned God they uttered their messages.

2. Their protest against things which were contrary to the will of God was without compromise. They knew nothing of the word "expedient," but they knew a great deal of the word "obedient." They had but one thing to say to men, namely, that if, individually or incorporate, or national life, they were not living in submission to the will of God they were in the place of certain and irrevocable ruin.

3. Their intention was always that of bringing glory to the name of Jehovah. Their aim was to restore the people of God to the true relation to him in order that his name might be glorified.

4. With varying notes and emotions, every song raised by these prophets was a song of hope, a song which came out of their profound conviction that God could not be defeated, but that his purpose of love must come to ultimate accomplishment.

In the interpretation of prophecy it must be remembered:

1. The very nature of the prophet’s function made it necessary that his utterances should contain "dark sayings" and enigmas. He was a special messenger of the invisible king to uphold the constitution of his kingdom on earth. His message had regard to the principles, and administrative measures, of divine government, and it inevitably followed that it would often have to be couched in analogical language: in figures, symbols, parables, and allegories. This mode of teaching left the insincere, unbelieving, and formalist to confine themselves within the narrow limits of literalism, but it rewarded the patient and docile seeker of God with warning, enlightenment, and comfort, as we find so often in the teachings of our Lord.

2. A right understanding of the Pentateuch is indispensable to the proper construing of these "dark sayings." The law supplies the basis of the prophetic word, and the great mass of legal teaching was conveyed in the form of typical history and emblematic ordinances.

3. As time went on, the history of the nation gave birth to fresh illustrations of the character of God, and provided additional material for prophetic allegory.

In considering predictive prophecy there should be especially recognized:

1. The failure of the Chosen People.

2. The coming Messiah.

3. The establishment of the kingdom of God by the Messiah himself.

4. The final restoration of the Jews.

5. The Messiah’s kingdom must ultimately be established over the whole earth.

There is a special fitness in the arrangement of the prophetic books as we have them in the Hebrew Bible and in our English versions. The book of Isaiah ranges over the whole field of prophetic vision. Beginning with a reiteration of the terms of the Mosaic covenant and eliciting no signs of repentance it proceeds to record against the people a sentence of reprobation, then the instrument by which God’s chastisement should be inflicted is declared. Then describing the overthrow of Samaria and Judah’s extreme peril he assures Judah of a remnant of safety for all future time. He promises the coming one whose name should be "Immanuel," "Wonderful," etc., "a sure Foundation," "the Servant of the Lord," a new covenant and "a new heaven and a new earth." When we look at the breadth and grandeur of the vision of Isaiah we need no further reason for acquiescing in the existing order. All the rest of the prophets fall within this scope and present one harmonious plan of revelation.

To illustrate the one ruling purpose which pervades all the prophets, we take the book of Jonah. The history of Jonah’s mission proves:

1. That, if Israel failed in her mission to diffuse the grace of God over the whole world, God was able, if he so willed, to work by them even as reluctant agents, for the publishing of his word among the Gentiles.

2. That the ready reception of that word by the people of Nineveh was a pre-intimation of what was thereafter to take place on a larger scale.

3. That the sparing of Nineveh was an encouragement to Israel that they too would be spared, if they only repented.

4. That if, on the other hand, they should not repent, "the men of Nineveh would rise up in the judgment and condemn them."

5. That this reformation of the Ninevites made them the more suitable for being employed as "the rod of God’s anger," in the punishment of Israel.

6. That in all this there was nothing arbitrary; that the divine procedure was regulated throughout by the supreme rule of right, as illustrated in the cases of Sennacherib and Hezekiah, respectively, and in which is illustrated also the saying, "mercy rejoices against judgment."

Not a few have come forward in recent times purporting to be interpreters of the prophets, who do not so much as admit the possibility of such a thing as a genuine prophecy. The assumption rests on the contention that it is inconceivable that God should communicate to man any foreknowledge, or pre-vision, of future events. This doctrine is generally introduced as if it were an axiomatic truth, the answer to which is that it cannot be axiomatic since many who have been eminent for scientific ability, philosophic insight and practical intelligence have believed that such communication has actually taken place. Therefore it can have no claim to being an axiom. Neither is their assumption capable of proof, by either deduction or induction. For a deductive proof it would have to be shown) either that God has not the power to impart such knowledge, or that he did not purpose and will to do so. To assert the first is to limit the Almighty. To assert the second, a man must needs be himself omniscient. "Who hath known the mind of the Lord?" As to induction, it may be boldly affirmed that an inductive process, legitimately performed, on the facts supplied by the Bible, establishes incontestably that men have foretold future events which lay beyond human knowledge and which have found a most remarkable amount of verification in the history of Jesus Christ and the formation of Christendom.

These naturalistic interpreters have come to the conclusion that these prophecies are much later in date than is generally conceded. They do not agree among themselves but the general tendency among them is to place much of our canonical prophetic literature into post-exilic times. This is clearly the result of their reasoning from the mere assumption that it is incredible that God should reveal future events to man in our studies of the prophets we shall follow the chronological order as given in Sampey’s Syllabus. Each book will receive special attention in the interpretation as to authorship, date, etc.

QUESTIONS

1. What section of our Bible do we commence in these studies?

2. What can you say, in general, of the literature on this section?

3. What helps commended and what the special feature commended, or what the reservation in each case?

4. What the time limits of the prophetic period and what the special mission of the prophets?

5. What is the definition of the word "prophet"?

6. By what words or terms were the prophets known? Give an illustration of each.

7. What can you say of the psychological process in the inspiration of the prophets?

8. What can you say of prophecy and fulfilment, in general, and what says Orelli as to fulfilment of prophecy?

9. Who were the prophets before Moses and what the biblical proof?

10. Who were the prophets in the age of Moses and what the proof?

11. Who were the prophets in the period of the judges and what the proof?

12. Who were the prophets from Samuel to the division of the kingdom? Cite proof.

13. Who were the prophets from the division of the kingdom to the time of Elijah and what the proof?

14. Who were the prophets in the period of Elijah and Elisha and what the proof?

15. What three great periods of the canonical prophets and who the canonical prophets of each of these periods?

16. What other prophets contemporary with the canonical prophets?

17. What the three distinct elements for which a student of the prophets should look?

18. What certain things should be remembered in a study of the prophets?

19. What important considerations in the interpretation of prophecy?

20. In considering predictive prophecy what may especially be recognized?

21. What are the special fitness in the arrangement of the prophetic books as we have them in the Hebrew Bible and in our English versions?

22. Illustrate the one ruling purpose which pervades all the prophets by the book of Jonah.

23. What are the naturalistic speculation with reference to this view and what the reply to such contention?

24. To what conclusion have these naturalistic interpreters come with respect to the date of many of these prophecies?

25. What was the order that we shall follow in our studies of the prophets?