ICR, Isaiah, and Old Testament Prophecy: How Not to Understand It

Earlier today, in one of the creation/evolution Facebook groups I am in, someone posted an article from last year by ICR (The Institute of Creation Research) regarding a recent archeological find in Jerusalem. The article, by Brian Thomas, was entitled, “Archeological Evidence for Isaiah.” In short, it was about a clay seal that was discovered that bore the name, “Isaiah the Prophet.” And, as the article says, just a few years earlier, in the same area of the dig, there had been found a bulla that bore King Hezekiah’s seal. Therefore, as the article correctly points out, these are bits of archeological evidence for the historicity of both Hezekiah and Isaiah.

Now, none of that is wrong or controversial in any way. I did find it interesting, although perhaps not all that surprising, that ICR had an article on something like biblical archeology. The other main YEC organization, Answers in Genesis, puts out things specifically about the Bible as well.

Why I Found the Article Rather Odd

What struck me about the ICR article, though, was the rather odd way in which they presented the archeological findings. After describing what the findings were, the article then turned a corner and said the following:

“These two bullae wreck decades of Bible-doubting scholarship. For example, skeptics have long claimed that unknown authors compiled the book of Isaiah sometime during the Babylonian captivity—centuries after the biblical time of Hezekiah’s life and reign. Supposedly, collections of scribes somehow borrowed from Babylonian myths to fabricate biblical events from the beginning of the world through the time of Kings. But poor scholarship underlies these speculations.”

And then, after that, Mr. Thomas brought it around to the real point of the article: the fulfilled messianic prophecies in the Book of Isaiah. He writes:

“Perhaps the unbiblical, and now archaeologically-inaccurate, assertion that Isaiah did not exist conveys a desire to thwart precise prophecies of Jesus. One way to try to erase the miracle of fulfilled prophecy is to deny that Scripture was written long before the foretold events. Similar attempts to delete other miracles—like Creation, the Flood, and the Exodus—abound, just as Peter forewarned.”

Now, I may not be the foremost Old Testament expert in the world, but I do teach Biblical Studies courses at the university level and my PhD did focus on the Book of Isaiah (specifically, understanding the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:12 within the larger context of Isaiah). Simply put, I do know the issues surrounding the Book of Isaiah fairly well. And to be quite honest, that first paragraph is a jumbled mess that betrays very little understanding of the actual issue concerning authorship of the Book of Isaiah. And that second paragraph betrays a very inaccurate, and quite frankly wrong, understanding of biblical prophecy, not to mention the quite predictable attempt to tie everything back to Genesis 1-11.

With all that said, I thought I’d take the time to share a few thoughts on both the Book of Isaiah itself, as well as how to understand biblical prophecy.

The Authorship of Isaiah

Despite what the article claims, I simply unaware of any biblical scholars who deny the historicity of the prophet Isaiah. Of course, there are bound to be a few crack-pots on the fringes who might think that, but I’ll just be honest: there isn’t a whole lot of “Bible-doubting scholarship” regarding the historicity of Isaiah. Mr. Thomas’ assertion in the article simply isn’t true.

What is true, though, is that there is a general scholarly consensus that the historical Isaiah didn’t write the entire Book of Isaiah. That is far different that claiming there was no historical Isaiah to begin with. But in any case, here’s the argument in regard to why scholars don’t think the historical Isaiah wrote all of the Book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 1-39 is clearly set in the mid to late 8^th century BC, specifically from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis in the mid-8^th century BC (Isaiah 7-12 is focused on that), to Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 BC (Isaiah 36-37 focuses on that). Simply put, Isaiah 1-39 is all about the historical Isaiah.

As soon as you turn to Isaiah 40, though, you find that it is calling the Jewish exiles to come out from the Babylonian Exile. They went into exile in 587 BC and didn’t come out of exile until 539 BC. That means that unless the historical Isaiah lived to be over 200 years old, he wouldn’t have been around in 539 BC to issue the prophetic call to come out of the Babylonian Exile. Furthermore, according to Jewish tradition, Isaiah was killed by Manasseh when he took the throne after Hezekiah died.

So, as you can see, there is a legitimate reason why scholars don’t think the historical Isaiah wrote chapters 40-66. Many, including myself, think that these chapters are still inspired and prophetic, and that they were the product of a prophetic school of Isaiah that had lasted throughout the years and who prophesied in his name. For that matter, it is worth saying that the historical Isaiah didn’t actually write Isaiah 1-39 either. Those 39 chapters contain his prophecies that were collected and assembled in their present form by his disciples. The narratives in Isaiah 7 and 36-39 weren’t written by Isaiah either, unless you think he liked to refer to himself in the third person. All that is perfectly okay and doesn’t threatened the legitimacy of the Book of Isaiah at all.

As for the second part of Mr. Thomas’ portrayal of what scholars claim about the Book of Isaiah, I simply don’t know what he’s talking about. My research has convinced me that Isaiah 1-39 was compiled shortly after Isaiah’s death, and then Isaiah 40-66 was written by later prophets writing in Isaiah’s name and then added to 1-39 later. But I don’t know of scholarship that claims that these later writers borrowed from Babylonian myths to fabricate supposed historical stories about Isaiah. I literally have no idea where Mr. Thomas got that from. That kind of claim would be “poor scholarship,” but I am unaware of any major biblical scholar who has claimed that.

Fulfilled Messianic Prophecy

Now, as is obvious in the article, the reason why Mr. Thomas is calling attention to those archeological findings is because he thinks (A) if it is proven that there was a historical Isaiah, then (B) that would help solidify the legitimacy of the messianic prophecies found in Isaiah, because (C) if there was a historical Isaiah in the 8^th century BC, and he really said/wrote all of Isaiah, then that would mean he predicted various things about Jesus 750 years ahead of time—WOW! The Bible is true, so no one should doubt that the creation account in Genesis 1, Noah’s Flood in Genesis 6-8, or the story of the Exodus literally happened exactly the way it is written.

Well, again, speaking as someone who has studied and taught this stuff for 20 years, that is just muddled thinking. Sure, well-meaning, but still muddled and misleading.

First, Mr. Thomas’ understanding of prophecy and fulfillment is just wrong. The reason why we have a book of Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, etc., is because the ancient Jews were convinced they were true prophets. And why would they think that? Because what those prophets prophesied had come true.

The easiest example would be in Jeremiah. There was another prophet during Jeremiah’s day—Hananiah. He prophesied that YHWH wanted King Zedekiah to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar and that YHWH would give him the victory if he did. Jeremiah said, “No, Nebuchadnezzar is YHWH’s judgment on you! You need to submit!” At the time, Hananiah was praised and Jeremiah was thrown in prison. Well, guess what? Zedekiah did rebel and Nebuchadnezzar came, destroyed Jerusalem, and carried the people into exile? At that point, what did the Jews realize? Hananiah was a false prophet and Jeremiah was a true prophet of YHWH. Therefore, they kept Jeremiah’s prophecies and that is why we now have a Book of Jeremiah. There is no Book of Hananiah—his prophecies got tossed out and destroyed.

The same goes for Isaiah. The very structure of Isaiah 1-39, particularly the bookend narratives of Isaiah 7 and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis and then Isaiah 36-37 and Sennacherib’s invasion, illustrates that the prophecies Isaiah uttered during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis (chapters 7-12) were fulfilled when YHWH saved Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s invasion (chapters 36-37). Simply put, Isaiah’s prophecies were preserved because what he had prophesied had come true. Later on, when his disciples prophesied in his name about the return from exile, and when it happened, those prophesies were preserved too and attached to Isaiah 1-39.

Now, there is a lot more to the concept of biblical prophecy, but for my purposes here, I simply want to show that Mr. Thomas’ assertion (A) OT prophecies were nothing more than far-off “predictions” is simply wrong, and that (B) those messianic prophecies in Isaiah were not just “predictions” that were sitting around for 750 years, waiting for Jesus to make them come true. Rather, they had an original context and an original fulfillment—that’s why they were preserved in the first place.

Therefore, when Mr. Thomas says, “One way to try to erase the miracle of fulfilled prophecy is to deny that Scripture was written long before the foretold events,” he is simply displaying a poor understanding of what prophecy is. In its original context, Isaiah 7:14 (as well as other prophecies in Isaiah 7-12) was understood to be a prophecy about the birth of Hezekiah, and how he would be the faithful king through whom YHWH would repel the Assyrian threat that the unfaithful Ahaz has let in. When the New Testament writers then quote passages like Isaiah 7:14 and apply them to Jesus, they are essentially saying, “Remember those prophecies about Hezekiah? Well, Jesus is like that, but bigger!” That is what the New Testament concept of fulfilled prophecy means: not “far-off predictions” finally happening; but rather, what God is doing through Jesus is like things He did back in the life of Israel, but bigger.

This understanding doesn’t diminish OT messianic prophecies at all. Rather, this understanding opens the door to a much deeper understanding and appreciation of them, and how the New Testament writers applied them to Jesus.

Conclusion

The problem with articles like this one that can be found on YECist websites like ICR or AiG isn’t that people like Mr. Thomas are trying to be deceptive. The archeological finds regarding Isaiah’s clay seal and Hezekiah’s bulla are really important and fascinating and give further proof of the Old Testament’s historicity. The problem, though, is both in the way in which these organizations are trying to use them, and the clear an obvious ignorance they further regarding what biblical scholarship actually says. Simply put, it is clear they don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to biblical scholarship and proper biblical interpretation, so no matter how well-intentioned they may be to defend the reliability of the Bible, they simply don’t do it well and end up mischaracterizing what the issues really are.

And, of course, their singular obsession of trying to prove the early chapters of Genesis are historical distorts all their attempts at truly understanding the Bible. It’s just like what Anakin Skywalker complains about regarding the sand of Tatooine: it gets into everything.

So yes, Isaiah’s clay seal and Hezekiah’s bulla are awesome. There was a historical Isaiah. His prophecies were proven to be true—that’s why they kept his stuff (Isaiah 1-39). And later prophets prophesying in his name called the Jews out of exile, and when that happened, those prophecies were kept too. And then the New Testament writers drew upon those prophecies to explain the significance of Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenant promises.

But those prophecies were not free-floating, far-off predictions that were just sitting around for 750 years. Such thinking has got to go, for it actually cheapens biblical prophecy and equates it with nothing more than fortune-telling.