Isaiah Versus “The Gods”: A Case for Unity

By Robert Vasholz

Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

The message of the prophet in Isaiah 40–48 includes polemic. The chief object of the prophet’s attack is the foreign gods. The prophet is aggressive to the point of ridicule. In Isaiah 44:14ff the prophet speaks of the man who cuts down a Cypress, uses part to warm himself, part to cook his food, and the remainder to make a “detestable thing,” an idol. The idolator is a worshipper of an inanimate block of wood. So how deluded can one be? “Though one cries out to it, it does not answer; it cannot save him from his troubles” (Isaiah 46:7b).

The prophet’s attack, however, more often takes on the form of a “trial speech.”[1] “Present your case” says Yahweh the plaintiff to the (foreign) “gods,” the defendants (Isaiah 41:21). If they are true “gods,” they are called upon to defend themselves. They must prove their divinity. This can be accomplished by the god’s ability to speak of an historical act in advance. For Yahweh has already shown His military supremacy in the past over these adversaries. The answer to the field commander’s question: “Has the god of any nation ever delivered his land from the hand of the King of Assyria?” is, of course, No! (Isaiah 37:18ff). The gods of Hamath and Arpad, the gods of Sepharvaim could not deliver from the hand of the Assyrians. But the prophet’s God can and did just as He foretold (Isaiah 33–37). Now these “gods” (or ones like them) are called upon again, not to save their admirers, for they failed in this, but to predict events of things to come. The prophet thus intends to rob “the gods” of all credibility.

The emphasis of this kind of challenge cannot be denied.[2]

The prophet repeats it over and over again at the expense of the foreign gods. “Let them (the idols) tell us what is going to happen…Declare to us the things to come that we may know that you are gods” (Isaiah 41:21–23). “Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, He was right” (Isaiah 41:26). It certainly was not the gods for they are “empty wind” (Isaiah 41:29). Rather it was Yahweh who said, “here they are” (Isaiah 41:27). Yahweh is One who announces historical acts before they spring into being (Isaiah 42:9). Israel has seen this and so she is Yahweh’s witness (Isaiah 43:10, 12; 44:7–8). It is Yahweh who has revealed and proclaimed and not “the gods” among you (Isaiah 43:12; 44:8). If there be any others like Yahweh, let them proclaim “What is yet to come—yes, let him (the idol) foretell what will come” (Isaiah 44:7). “For Yahweh carries out the words of His servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers” (Isaiah 44:26). Hence He “foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners” (Isaiah 44:25). In Isaiah 45:11 Yahweh commands the nation to ask Him concerning things to come.[3] As E. J. Young points out, the emphasis falls upon “the coming things” in as much as these words are first in the clause.[4] Again, Yahweh directly confronts “the gods” to take (legal) counsel together and to declare what is to be (Isaiah 45:20–21). For He alone makes known the “end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come” (Isaiah 46:10). He foretold the former things long ago… and they came to pass….“ before they happened. I (Yahweh) announced them to you” (Isaiah 48:3, 5). Yahweh performed this for the House of Jacob so that they could not say, “My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them” (Isaiah 48:5). Thus Yahweh again will tell of “new things.” These are things never heard of before so that no one can say, “Yes, I knew them” (Isaiah 48:6–7).[5] Then when Yahweh carries out this purpose against the Chaldeans, “the gods” may again be asked, “which of you have foretold these things?” (Isaiah 48:14).

From the above references, nothing is more cogent. Yahweh foretells the future. To borrow a phrase of J. P. Carroll, “…he was the prophet who insisted that one mark of the superiority of his deity was that he could declare the future. For Second Isaiah’s test for the gods was simply, ‘Tell us what is to come here after, that we may know you are gods.’“[6] None other shares this distinction, certainly not “the gods.” Foretelling confirms claim to deity and in this Yahweh is exclusive. “I am God and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:18). He is mighty in battle (the defeat of Sennacherib) but above all, reports His deliverance in advance so that all may know that he alone has done it.

In addition, Yahweh by the prophet, provides evidence of his foretelling. This He does in His reference to the “former things.” While the expression “former things” (ראשנות) does include “events interpretation in retrospect” as in Isaiah 41:22, it means more than this.[7] For in the prophet’s day the “former things” have taken place (Isaiah 42:9). They were things foretold and proclaimed (Isaiah 43:9; 46:9). They occurred during the lifetime of the prophet and his people (Isaiah 48:3–6).[8] The “former things” then refer to the prophecies Yahweh spoke through the prophet which were fulfilled in the prophet’s day.[9] Israel, therefore, could be called upon as an eyewitness of them.

It is Isaiah 1–39 then that provides definition and content for the “former things.” It is pericope defined repeatedly as prophecies and their fulfillment. They indicate the prophet’s call by thus attesting to historical acts spoken in advance and thus Yahweh’s duty according to His own terms.

Examples of prophecies fulfilled in Isaiah 1–39 abound. In Isaiah 7–16 the prophet predicts that “before a lad knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings (Pekah and Rezin)…will be land waste.” That is, within three to four years (or thirteen if one follows the Rabbins’ age of accountability) those two kings will be destroyed.[10] To emphasize his prediction, the prophet takes a large scroll and writes the name of a boy, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, on it. The destruction of the two kingdoms before the boy is born and reaches a stage of development (“reject the evil and choose the good”) will verify the prophetic word. The prophet calls upon two reliable witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah to note the writing of the boy’s name before he goes into the prophetess (Isaiah 8:1–4). These witnesses can then testify when the two kings perish (734 bc) that their demise was accomplished exactly as the prophet had spoken.[11]

Numerous other fulfilled prophecies during the prophet’s lifetime are evident in the section described as “Prophecies Against the Nations” (Isaiah 13–23). The prophecy against the Philistines, including Ashdod (14:28–32; 20) was fulfilled by 711; the prophecy against Moab (15:1–9a) in 715–714; against Samaria (17:4–6) in 722; against Babylon (21:1–10) in 689; and against Arabia (21:13–17 were largely fulfilled between 705–701, the prophecy concerning Egypt (30:6) was realized at Eltekeh (701) and, again, within the experience of the prophet and his audiences.[12] Add to this the forecast of the defeat of the super power Sennecherib (Isaiah 29:7; 33:19; 37:33, 36; 2 Kings 19:35, 36) and the sign and healing of Hezekiah from death by disease (Isaiah 38:21–22). Surely these things also must have been witnessed by the people of Jerusalem.

What is the sum of the matter? In fine, whether one holds to the unity of the book of Isaiah or not, Isaiah 40–48 is ludicrous if one assumes that the prophet of these chapters feels he is speaking vaticinia ex eventu or vaticinia post eventu. Such a position completely undermines all that the prophet stands for in Isaiah 40–48.[13] It reduces Yahweh to a status inferior to “the gods.” The book becomes a self-contradiction. The citations concerning Cyrus and his deliverance of Judah (Isaiah 44:28–45:6) to make sense, must be considered as prophetic, not present or past history, reinforced by a prophet who has a record that he is Yahweh’s spokesman. The prophecies about Cyrus and Israel’s new exodus are told way in advance (“you have not heard of them before”) to demonstrate Yahweh’s decisive supremacy over “the gods” and to prove anew the futility of worshipping them (Isaiah 45:15–17). Thus when the Cyrus event does come to pass “before they happened I announced them to you” (Isaiah 48:5), the prophecies concerning the Suffering Servant may also be trusted.

Notes

1. Cf. also Isaiah 41:1–5; 21–29; Isaiah 43:8–15; Isaiah 45:20–25. C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), pp. 139-141 includes Isaiah 44:6ff, though the form is not as precise.
2. James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), pp. 76-78 denies that Deutero-Isaiah’s predictions are historical acts uttered in advance. For him the prophet’s predications are only revelations of the nature of God. The argument loses meaning however when one considers “the gods.” What are they asked to do? Are they not challenged to speak of historical acts in advance? It seems so from Smart’s own statement. The prophet “taunts the nations that none of their diviners have been able to tell them what is about to happen…the gods are unable to warn the nations and what awaits them…. The challenge Yahweh issues to “the gods” must be the same one Yahweh Himself accepts.
3. The RSV omits “concerning things to come” (NIV) but both the MT and LXX include it. The latter (LXX) though, takes it as the object of “maker (of)” instead of the object of “ask” (MT).
4. E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), p. 205.
5. “New things never heard of before” would certainly suit an 8th century prophet, if the new things pertain to Cyrus and release from Babylon, but would have no meaning for a Deutero-Isaiah of the 6th century.
6. J. P. Carroll, “Second Isaiah and the Failure of Prophecy,” Studia Theologica, 32 (1978), p. 130.
7. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 85.
8. C. R. North, “The Former Things and the New Things in Deutero-Isaiah,” Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rawley (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1957), pp. 122-123, has demonstrated that “former things” (ראשנות) and “long ago” (מאן) need not denote a distant past. In fact North points out at least one instance where מאן refers to the day before yesterday. In addition, “former things” of Isaiah 43:18 may not refer to the passage of the Red Sea. The allusion to the Red Sea (Isaiah 43:16–17) seems to be part of a lengthy divine attribute in apposition to Yahweh, cf. Isaiah 44:24ff. It serves as another example of a God who foretells mighty acts in advance.
9. Isaiah 43:3 also indicates that the “former things” are past. Unless one assumes a sixth century milieu for Isaiah 40–48, the “former things” cannot refer to the early conquests of Cyrus for the “former things” were witnessed by Isaiah himself, an eighth century figure. In that day Israel witnessed, among other things, the miraculous victory over Sennacherib and the impact of this, whether one holds to the unity of Isaiah or not, should be considered to be reflected in Isaiah 40–48. How could such an event be overlooked? No doubt J. Barton Payne is correct when he sees in the “one from the east” (Isaiah 41:2–4) a reference to Sennacherib. J. Barton Payne, “Eight Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah,” Westminster Theological Journal, 30 (1967), pp. 50-58.
10. But Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Isaiah Vol. 1, (London: N. Trubner & Co., 1873), p. 43 states the period is more like twenty years.
11. English translations of Isaiah 7:16 have “the lad” (הנער) which tend to confuse. This definite article implies there is an antecedent, however, “the lad” of Isaiah 7:16 is not the child of Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew article in 7:16 should not be translated. Cf. Gesenuis, Kautzsch-Cowley, 126qr. It is of interest to note that the NIV translates the identical expression הנער in Numbers 11:27 as “a young lad” recognizing the above principle. As Calvin explained, this usage is “very customary” to the Hebrew. John Calvin, Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953), p. 250. Even so Isaiah 7:14 העלמה “a virgin” NIV.
12. Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1972), p. 309.
13. J. P. Carroll, “Second Isaiah and the Failure of Prophecy,” p. 127: “…Second Isaiah would stand indicted as a false prophet if his word did not come true.”