Prophets Speak into Their Own Time, All the Time?
This is a crucial question, one that divides biblical scholars into two major camps: 1) those who argue for the textual and authorial unity of Isaiah, and 2) those who attribute Isaiah to three or more different authors who live and write in at least three different time periods, and whose texts have passed through the hands of editors and redactors, resulting in the final, completed text as we have it. What camp you're in is fundamentally a philosophical issue, not a textual one.
When I teach the prophets, I view them from a strictly literary perspective, reading the text as we have it, as a unified literary work. I do not explore how the text was written, by whom, or when. That's a topic for a different time and place, not really appropriate for a general audience, but for an advanced graduate seminar.
That's a very deliberate and careful distinction, for it allows me to view the text in its final, finished form as a unified literary work, set between 740-686 B.C. and attributed to Isaiah the prophet. That's very different from saying that the text was written by Isaiah the prophet during the same period. I make that careful distinction to avoid bogging down in the "historical-critical" arguments vs. the "unified text" arguments. For me, it's a pedagogical issue. I talk about this in my introduction to the prophets.
If we bog down in these arguments, we bring front and center the issue of long range, specific, predictive prophecy. Either (A): God has given Isaiah the ability to name names and specific events long before they ever happen; or (B): the references to Cyrus the Great were written by someone else long after Isaiah was dead, and they were added later to the text. Hence, our two major camps: 1) those who argue for the textual and authorial unity of Isaiah and 2) those who attribute Isaiah to three or more different authors who live and write in at least three different time periods. And we're not going to settle that debate; we'll simply end up taking sides.
If we view the text as a unified literary work, however, and if we accept that what a prophet says will always have its fulfillment in a relatively short time period, then Isaiah speaking of Cyrus the Great must necessarily be a foreshadowing of future events, but in very specific terms. In the world of the text this is an entirely plausible scenario. Taken from a literary perspective. we don't have to choose sides, since we're accepting the text as we have it, in its final, completed form, putting aside the textual and authorial issues.
Thank you for the careful, detailed response.
Having studied with you for a number of years, I thought I understood the literary perspective that Logos takes in teaching the bible. The bible is a single unified literary work regardless of how it was written and editted over the centuries. God has handed us a complete story, that starts in Genesis and ends in Revelations.
In this story, Isaiah is a character. He lived between 740 and 686 BC. A major written prophet, he wrote the 66 chapters of the Hebrew scriptures attributed to him. In the story, others quote Isaiah, interact with him, and even study his writings centuries later. Jesus obviously studied Isaiah extensively.
Cyrus is also a character. He reigned from 538 (I think) until Darius a couple decades later. He conquered the entire world of the narative, and he commanded the rebuilding of the temple. That Cyrus is also a real historical figure (like most Biblical characters) is important, but beside the point.
But this is where I get lost. Just because we decide not to quibble over whether the Book of Isaiah was written by one person or many, within the narative, the Book of Isaiah is written by Isaiah. And regardless of who wrote it, within the story itself Isaiah prophesied the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem at least 150 years before it happened.
Now we can put aside all questions of authorship if we just say, well, God wrote (inspired) the Bible working through the spirit. God certainly knew all about Cyrus, the rebuilding of the Temple, and even his plan to visit that temple five centuries later as Jesus. But why would God have Isaiah prophesy about an event that would not occur for another century and a half, if he wanted prophets to always speak into their own time? At least into their own time until a larger foreshadowed event over-shadows the primary event.
So while your explaination is enlightening, I still don't understand. Please help. Thanks.
I see it like this: To fulfill the requirements of Deuteronomy 18, a prophet is validated by the events he speaks of coming true within a reasonably short period of time, short enough that the majority of his audience sees the prediction fulfilled. That is fundamental in reading the prophets. And most prophets give us the historical framework in which they are operating.
Sometimes, however, what the prophet says will have messianic or end-times foreshadowing. Isaiah 7: 14 is a good example. The virgin (young woman) being with child and giving birth to a son is literally fulfilled in Isaiah when the prophetess ("Mrs. Isaiah") gives birth to a son, and before that boy knows right from wrong (at 13 years old), Aram and Israel are defeated by the Assyrian Empire. The prophecy is given in 735 B.C. and it is fulfilled in 722 B.C. This great "saving" of Judah and Jerusalem foreshadows a much greater "saving" event when the physiological virgin (Mary) becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son who will save all of humanity. This is a form of "stepped-up parallelism." Clearly, Matthew sees the foreshadowing from his vantage point; Isaiah would never have recognized it.
But sometimes we encounter long-range, specific, predictive prophecy, such as Isaiah mentioning Cyrus the Great by name and saying what he will do--100 years before Cyrus is even born. Such events are exceptional. They can be explained in one of two ways: 1) God gave Isaiah the information, and Isaiah inserted it into his writing; or 2) someone else added the material later on, after the event took place. The vast majority of scholars ascribe to the latter. In neither case does the prophecy refer to immediate historical events. In both cases, though, they foreshadow a future event of greater "saving," but they do so in very specific terms. From a textual perspective, one must analyze how the prophecy came to be inserted, and by whom; from a literary perspective we don't especially care, taking the final, completed text as a unified whole and seeing in it an example of long-range, specific, predictive prophecy, which, in the world of the narrative, is given by God to Isaiah.
I hope this clarifies things a bit. Perhaps I should amend my lectures about prophecy always having an immediate historical application, nuancing the explanation as I have here.
I am finishing up Chronicles and moving onto Ezra, and Dr. Creasy's introduction brings up a teaching I am struggling with. Throughout his teaching, Dr. Creasy emphasizes important points and lessons. One such lesson is (hopefully, I am getting this right): "Prophets speak into their own time, 100% of the time. The prophesy may (and often does) foreshadow a greater event that will happen much later, but prophesies will always be fulfilled within the lifetime of the listeners. This is how you know a prophet is a true prophet; what he (she) says comes true."
A good example is Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah says, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz. Isaiah is addressing Ahaz's fear of Israel and Aram (Syria). Isaiah goes on to say, "But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."
Shortly after, the prophetess gave birth to a child, and Isaiah calls him "Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz", and before the boy is 13, Assyria destroys Israel and Syria. See Isaiah 8:3-4.
Obviously, Isaiah is also speaking of Jesus. Mary gives birth to Jesus, and Jesus is God-with-us, Immanuel. This is the larger prophesy that is foreshadowed by Isaiah and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
Yes, that's correct. A prophet will always speak into his own historical context. In Isaiah, for example, we're told in 1: 1--"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah, son of Amoz, saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." Isaiah becomes a prophet in the last year of king Uzziah (Isaiah 6: 1-8, 740 B.C.) and continues as a prophet through the reign of Hezekiah (686 B.C.). The two major events during that time are Assyria attacking and destroying the northern kingdom of Israel (722 B.C.), and Assyria attacking Jerusalem and being defeated (701 B.C.). That is the historical context for the book of Isaiah, and its primary meaning lies within that context.
Sometimes, though, what the prophet says will have Messianic or eschatological foreshadowings, such as the Isaiah 7: 14 reference that you mention, or the "Suffering Servant" songs that refer primarily to God's servant, Israel (see Isaiah 41: 1-3), and secondarily foreshadow the Messiah (recall Philip instructing the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8: 26-40).
The prophets are emphatically NOT seers to whom God gives information regarding distant events, several hundred years in the future.
Once we understand this, we may approach the prophets on solid ground.
We discuss Isaiah's prophecy regarding Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, at the beginning of our study of Ezra, and with this prophecy, we finally get to my real question. In Isaiah 44 and 45, Isaiah proclaims how "Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,' of the towns of Judah, 'They shall be built,' and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,'". This is proclaimed sometime prior to 686BC, so Jerusalem, the temple, the towns: none of them have even been destroyed yet. Jerusalem does not fall until 605, and the temple is not razed until 586. So there are no ruins in early 7th century BC, let alone any rebuilding.
Isaiah goes on to say, "Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd will accomplish all that I please; will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '" In Isaiah 45, God calls Cyrus "his anointed", and God proclaims a great destiny for him. We understand from our study, as well as the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ester, that the Cyrus that God and Isaiah prophesy is Cyrus the Great of Persia. Cyrus does indeed order the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the temple, and the towns of Judah. Josephus, in volume 11 of Jewish Antiquities, tells us that Cyrus got this idea from reading Isaiah.
But a prophet always speaks into his own time, so is there some Cyrus in the early 7th century BC that rebuilds after the wars with Assyria and Israel? Is Isaiah speaking into his own time, or is only talking about Cyrus the great. I am confused about this prophecy, and how it can discuss in such detail an event that will not happen for at least 150 years, but not speak into the prophets own time. Does this negate the rule? Or perhaps this is the "exception that proves the rule".