(1) The internal evidence supplied by the prophecy itself points to this period [time of the captivity] as that at which it was written. It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined and deserted; to the sufferings which the Jews have experienced, or are experiencing, at the hands of the Chaldaeans; to the prospect of return, which, as the prophet speaks, is imminent. Those whom the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses in person—arguing with them, appealing to them, striving to win their assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric—are not the men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh, they are the exiles in Babylonia. Judged by the analogy of prophecy, this constitutes the strongest possible presumption that the author actually lived in the period which he thus describes, and is not merely (as has been supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the future, and holding converse, as it were, with the generations yet unborn. Such an immersion, in the future would be not only with parallel in the O. T., it would be contrary to the nature of prophecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his own contemporaries: the message which he brings intimately related with the circumstances of his time; his promises and predictions, however far they reach into the future, nevertheless rest upon the basis of the history of his own age, and correspond to the needs which are then felt. The prophet never abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it.[[49]]
(2) The argument derived from the historic function of prophecy is confirmed by the literary style of c. 40-66, which is very different from that of Isaiah 1-39. Isaiah 1-39 shows strongly marked individualities of style; he is fond of particular images and phrases, many of which are used by no other writer of the O. T. Now, in the chapters which contain evident allusions to the age of Isaiah himself, these expressions occur repeatedly; in the chapters which are without such allusions, and which thus authorize prima facie the inference that they belong to a different, age, they are absent, and new images and phrases appear instead. This coincidence cannot be accidental. The subject of c. 40-66 is not so different from that of Isaiah's prophecies (e.g.) against the Assyrians, as to necessitate a new phraseology and rhetorical form. The differences can only be reasonably explained by the supposition of a change of author.[[50]]
(3) The theological ideas of c. 40-66 (in so far as they are not of that fundamental kind common to the prophets generally) differ remarkably from those which appear, from c. 1-39, to be distinctive of Isaiah. Thus, on the nature of God generally, the ideas expressed are much larger and fuller. Isaiah, for instance, depicts the majesty of Jehovah: in c. 40-66 the prophet emphasizes his infinitude; He is the Creator, the Sustainer of the universe, the Life-Giver, the Author of history, the First and the Last, the Incomparable One. This is a real difference. And yet it cannot be argued that opportunities for such assertions of Jehovah's power and Godhead would not have presented themselves naturally to Isaiah whilst he was engaged in defying the armies of Assyria. But, in truth, c. 40-66 show an advance upon Isaiah, not only in the substance of their theology, but also in the form in which it is presented; truths which are merely affirmed in Isaiah being here made the subject of reflection and argument.[[51]]
These arguments when expressed in these general terms seem quite formidable; but they are much stronger in general statement than when one follows the advocates of them through all the references cited by them in support of the theory; for then one is impressed with the very heavy weights which the Higher Criticism hangs on very slender threads. As before remarked, however, I may not go beyond outline treatment of the matter here.
The first thing those of us who believe Isaiah to be the author of the whole book through so many ages accredited to him, both by Jews and Christians—the first thing we have a right to demand of these innovators is: If Isaiah the prophet is not the author of the last twenty-seven chapters of the book that bears his name, who is the author? Confessedly chapters 40-66 of Isaiah are the most important part of the book. How is it that chapters 1-39 can be assigned an author, but the more important chapters 40-66 have to be assigned to an "unknown" author? Was knowledge in those antique times so imperfect that the author of such a remarkable production as Isaiah 40-66 could not be ascertained?
Second, there is no heading to this second division of Isaiah 40-66; and it is not true that this second part is unconnected with the first part. Allowing something to the spirit of prophecy in Isaiah, by which I mean a power to foresee events, which carries with it a power in the prophet to project himself into the midst of those things foreseen, and to speak from the midst of them as if they were present—as indeed they were to his consciousness—and there is an immediate connection between the two parts. Chapter 39 predicts the Babylonian captivity. Hezekiah has just been made to hear the word of the Lord—
Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.
And thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 39:6-7.)
In the opening chapter of the supposed second division of Isaiah, chapter 40, the prophet launches out upon that series of prophecies that treat, first, of the deliverance of Israel from this captivity just spoken of through Cyrus, king of Persia; and, second, a larger deliverance of Israel through the redemption brought to pass by the Christ. Because of this close and logical connection between the supposed divisions of the book, one is justified in holding that the inscription of chapter i:1, applies to the whole book, and implies that Isaiah is the author of the second part, 40-66, as well as of the first part, 1-39. "Nor do the words concerning Judah and Jerusalem," says an eminent authority, "oppose the idea that the inscription applied to the whole; for whatever he [Isaiah] says against other nations, he says on account of their relation to Judah."[[52]]
Second, the Higher Critics must deal with some facts of history before their claims can be allowed. According to Josephus, the Jews showed the prophecies of Isaiah (chapter 44:28; 45:1-13)to Cyrus the king, to induce him to return the Jews to Jerusalem and order the building of the temple, upon which Cyrus issued the following decree:
Thus saith Cyrus the king, Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship, for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.
This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said, that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision; "My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him, to fulfill what was so written.[[53]]
The above is confirmed also by Ezra i:2. Now the value of this exhibition of the word of the Lord to Cyrus grew out of the circumstance that it was a prophecy uttered by Isaiah one hundred and fifty years before it came to the knowledge of Cyrus. It was the fact that it was "foreknowledge" that caused Cyrus to admire the divine power thus displayed; it was this that stirred him with the ambition to fulfill what was so written. Now either we must believe that the pious Jews, anxious to return to the land of their fathers, rebuild their temple and resume the thread of their national existence, deceived by a wretched subterfuge the king of Persia, and induced him to make this proclamation by such means; or else they really exhibited to him the writings of Isaiah, and this real prophecy respecting himself, fraught with such mighty consequences to a people chosen of God to stand as his witness among the nations of the earth. I cannot think that this action so important in the development of God's purposes respecting his people was founded in fraud; nor do I believe such mighty results were brought about by disclosing the prognostications of some "unknown" contemporary whose "eye had marked Cyrus in the distance as the coming deliverer of his nation;" such cause would be inadequate to the results.
Again, Luke represents the Christ as reading a passage from this second division of Isaiah (chapter 61:1, 2), and reading it as coming from Isaiah; and also as being fulfilled in his own person: