Book Notes:
Barnes' Book Notes
Introduction to Isaiah
Section 1. Division of the Books of the Old Testament
Early on the Jews divided the books of the Old Testament into three parts - the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa (the holy writings). The Law was comprised of the five books of Moses. Priority was given to this division because it was the first composed, as well as on account of its containing their civil and ecclesiastical constitution and their oldest historical records.
The Prophets comprised the second and the largest division of the sacred writings of the Jews. This portion included the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings, which were called the "former prophets;" and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the books from Hosea to Malachi, which were called the "latter prophets." Daniel has been excluded from this portion by later Jews and assigned to the third division, because they did not regard him as a prophet, but as an historical writer. Formerly, his work was doubtless included in the second division.
The third portion, "the Hagiographa," includes the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and the two books of Chronicles.
This three-fold division of the Old Testament is as old as the time of our Saviour, because he refers to it in Luke 24:44. The Jews attribute the arrangement and division of the canonical books to Ezra. They say that he was assisted in this by 120 men who constituted ' a great synagogue;' that Daniel, and his three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were of this number; and that Haggai and Zechariah, together with Simon the Just, were also connected with it. But this statement is known to be erroneous. From the time of Daniel to the time of Simon the Just, not less than 250 years intervened (Alexander on the Canon, pp. 26, 27); and of course all these persons could not have been present. It is not, however, improbable that Ezra may have been assisted by learned and pious men who aided him in the work. What Ezra did is indeed unknown. It is the general opinion that he collected and arranged the books which now compose the Old Testament; that perhaps he wrote some of the historical books, or compiled them from fragments of history and documents that might have been in the public archives (compare the Analysis of Isa. 36); and that he gave a finish and arrangement to the whole. Since Ezra was an inspired man, the arrangement of the sacred books, and the portions which he may have added, thus have the sanction of divine authority. There is no evidence, however, that Ezra "completed" the canon of the Old Testament. Malachi lived after him, and in the First Book of Chronicles 1 Chr. 3 the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down to the time of Alexander the Great - about 130 years subsequent to the time of Ezra. The probability is, therefore, that Ezra "commenced" the arrangement of the books, and that the canon of the Old Testament was completed by some other hand.
The Prophets were divided into "the former and the latter." Among the latter, Isaiah has uniformly held the first place and rank. This has been assigned to him not because he prophesied before all the others. Indeed he preceded Ezekiel and Jeremiah, but Jonah, Amos, and Hosea were his contemporaries. The precedence has been given to his prophecies over theirs, probably for two reasons; first, on account of their length, dignity, and comparative value; and secondly, because the minor prophets were formerly bound in one volume, or written on one roll of parchment, and it was convenient to place them "together," and they all had a place, therefore, after Isaiah. At all times the prophecies in Isaiah have been regarded as the most important of any in the Old Testament; and by common consent they have been deemed worthy of the principal place among the Jewish writings.
Section 2. The Life of Isaiah, and the Characteristics of His Writings
Of the time in which Isaiah lived, little more is known than he has himself told us. In the superscription to his book Isaiah 1:1, we are told that he was the son of Amoz, and that he discharged the prophetic office under the reign of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. In regard to those times, and the character of the period in which they reigned, see section 3 of this introduction (below). It is evident also from the prophecies themselves that he delivered them during the reign of these kings. In Isaiah 6:1, it is expressly said that he had a vision of Yahweh in the year in which Uzziah died. Of course, he must have commenced his prophetic labors at least as early as during the last year of that king. If that chapter or vision was not designed as an inauguration of the prophet, or an induction into the prophetic office (see the notes on Isaiah 6:1-13), and if his prophecies were collected and arranged as they were delivered, then it will follow that the previous chapters Isa. 1-5 may have been delivered in the reign of Uzziah, and perhaps some time before his death.
There is no express mention made of his uttering any prophecies in the time of Jotham. Hengstenberg and others suppose that the prophecies in Isa. 2-5 were delivered during his reign. But of this there is no conclusive evidence. He might not have "recorded" anything during his reign; though he may, as a public preacher, have been engaged in the prophetic office in another mode. His writings themselves contain evidence that he was engaged in the prophetic office in the reign of Ahaz. See Isa. 7 and the following chapters. From Isa. 36-39 we learn that he was engaged in the prophetic office during the reign of Hezekiah. We have an explicit statement that he was occupied in his prophetic work until the 15th year of Hezekiah, at the commencement of which the ambassadors from Babylon came up to Jerusalem to congratulate him on his recovery from his illness; In Isaiah 39:1-8 Uzziah died, according to Calmet, 754 years before Christ. Isaiah must therefore have occupied the prophetic office at least from 754 to 707 b.c., or 47 years; that is, under Uzziah one year, under Jotham for 16 years, under Ahaz for 16 years, and under Hezekiah for 14 years.
It is not known at what age Isaiah entered into the prophetic function. It is probable that he lived much longer than to the 15th year of Hezekiah. In II Chronicles 32:32, it is said that ' the rest of the acts of Hezekiah' were ' written in the vision of Isaiah;' and this statement obviously implies that he survived him, and recorded the deeds of his reign up to his death. Since Hezekiah lived 14 or 15 years after this (Isaiah 38:5, compare II Kings 18:2), this would make the period of his public ministry to extend to at least 61 or 62 years. If Isaiah survived Hezekiah, he probably lived some time until during the reign of Manasseh. This supposition is confirmed not indeed by any direct historical record in the Old Testament, but by all the traditional accounts which have been handed down to us. The testimony of the Jews and of the early fathers is uniform that Isaiah was put death by Manasseh by being sawn asunder. The main alleged offence was that Isaiah had said that he had seen Yahweh, and that for this he ought to die, in accordance with the law of Moses Exodus 33:20, "No man shall see me and live." If Isaiah lived until the time of Manasseh, and especially if Isaiah prophesied under Manasseh' s reign, it is probable the true reason why he was put to death was that he was offensive to the monarch and his court.
The circumstances which render the supposition probable that Isaiah lived under Manasseh, and that he was put to death by him by being sawn asunder, are the following:
(1) The fact which has been stated above that Isaiah lived to complete the record of the reign of Hezekiah and of course survived him.
(2) The testimony of the Jewish writers: There is indeed much that is fabulous in their writings, and even in connection with the truths which they record; there is much that is puerile and false. However, there is no reason to doubt the main "facts" which they relate. Indeed, Josephus does not expressly state that he was slain by Manasseh, but he gives an account of the reign of Manasseh which renders it probable that if Isaiah were then alive he would have been put to death. Thus, he says (Ant. book 10, chapter 3, section 1) that ' he barbarously slew all the righteous men that were among the Hebrews; nor would he spare the prophets, for he every day slew some of them, until Jerusalem was overflown with blood.' In the Talmud the following record occurs: Manasseh put Isaiah to death. The rabbi said that he condemned him and put him to death, because he said to him, "Moses, thy lord, said, ' No man shall see me and live' Exodus 33:20, but thou hast said, ' I saw the Lord upon a throne high and lifted up' Isaiah 6:1. Moses, thy lord, said, ' Who will make the Lord so near that we can call to him' ; but thou hast said, ' Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near' Isaiah 55:6. Moses, thy lord, said, ' The number of thy days will I fulfill' Exodus 22:26; but thou hast said, ' I will add to thy days fifteen years' Isaiah 38:5, etc. See Gesenius, Einlei. p. 12. The testimony of the Jews on this subject is uniform. Michaelis (the Preface to Isaiah) has referred to the following places in proof on this point. Tract. Talmud. Jabhamoth, 49; "Sanhedrin, fol. 103; Jalkut, part ii. fol. 38; Schalscheleth Hakkab." fol. 19. Rashi and Abarbanel in their commentaries give the same statement.
(3) The testimony of the early Christian writers is the same. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, speaking of Isaiah, says, ?? ? ? ?? on prioni zulo? eprisate , ' whom ye sawed asunder with a wooden saw.' Tertullian (de patientia, c. 14) says, His patientiae viribus secatur Esaias. - Lactantius (lib. iv. c. 2) says, Esais, quem ipsi Judaei serra consectum crudelissime necaverunt. - Augustine (de Civit. Dei, lib. 18, c. 24) says, ' the prophet Isaiah is reputed to have been slain by the impious King Manasseh.' Jerome (on Isaiah 57:1) says, that the prophet prophesied in that passage of his own death, for ' it is an undisputed tradition among us, that he was sawn asunder by Manasseh, with a wooden saw.' These passages and others from the Jewish writers and from the fathers are to be found in Michaelis' Preface to Isaiah; in Gesenius' Introduction; and in Carpzov, Crit. Sacr. In a matter of simple fact, there seems to be no reason to call this testimony into question. It is to be remembered that Jerome was well acquainted with Hebrew, that he dwelt in Palestine, and no doubt has given the prevalent opinion about the death of Isaiah.
(4) The character of Manasseh was such as to make it probable that, if Isaiah lived at all during his reign, Manasseh would seek his death. In II Kings 21:16, it is said of Manasseh that he ' shed innocent blood very much, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This account is in entire accordance with that of Josephus, quoted above. In the early part of his reign, it is recorded that he did evil, and especially that he raised the high places and the altars of idolatry which Hezekiah had destroyed, and endeavored to restore again the abominations which had existed in the time of Ahab, II Kings 21:2-3. It is scarcely credible that such a man as Isaiah would see all this done without some effort to prevent it; and it is certain that such an effort would excite the indignation of Manasseh. If, however, Manasseh cut off the righteous men of Jerusalem, as Josephus testifies, and as the author of the Books of Kings would lead us to believe, there is every probability that Isaiah would also fall a sacrifice to his indignation. It is not necessary in order to this to suppose that Isaiah appeared much in public; or that, being then an old man, he should take a prominent part in the transactions of that period. That we have no recorded prophecy of that time, as we have of the times of Uzziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, leaves it probable that Isaiah had withdrawn from the more public functions of the prophetic office, and probably (see section 4 of this introduction) had given himself to the calm and holy contemplation of future and better times under the Messiah. But still Isaiah' s sentiments would be known to the monarch; and his influence while he lived among the people may have been materially in the way of the designs of Manasseh. Manasseh, therefore, may have regarded it as necessary to remove him, and in the slaughter of the good men and prophets of his time, there is every probability that Isaiah would have been made a victim.
(5) It affords some confirmation of this statement that Paul Hebrews 11:37 affirms of some of the ancient saints, that they were ' sawn asunder.' In the Old Testament there is no express mention of any one' s being put to death in this manner, but it has been common with all expositors, from the earliest periods, to suppose that Paul had reference to Isaiah. The universal tradition on this subject among the Hebrews makes this morally certain. It is certain that Paul could not have made such an enumeration unless there was a well-established tradition of some one or more who had suffered in this manner; and all tradition concurs in assigning it to Isaiah.
(6) The character of the second part of the prophecies of Isaiah Isa. 40-66 accords with this supposition. They are mainly employed in depicting the glories of a future age; the blessedness of the times of the Messiah. They bespeak the feelings of a holy man who was heart-broken with the existing state of things; and who had retired from active life, and sought consolation in the contemplation of future blessings. No small part of those prophecies is employed in lamenting an existing state of "idolatry" (see particularly Isa. 40; Isa. 41; Isaiah 56:1-12; Isa. 57; Isa. 65), and the prevalence of general irreligion. Such a decryption does not accord with the reign of Hezekiah; and it is evidently the language of a man who was disheartened with prevailing abominations, and who, seeing little hope of immediate reform, cast his mind forward into future times, and sought repose in the contemplation of happier days. How long Isaiah may have lived under Manasseh is unknown; and hence, it is not possible to ascertain Isaiah age when he was put to death. We may reasonably suppose that Isaiah entered into his prophetic function as early as the age of twenty. From Jeremiah 1:6, we learn that an earlier call than this to the prophetic office sometimes occurred. On this supposition, Isaiah would have been 82 years of age at the death of Hezekiah. There is no improbability, therefore, in the supposition that he might have lived 10 or even 15 years or more, under the long reign of Manasseh. The priest Jehoiada attained the great age of 130 years II Chronicles 24:15. Evidently, Isaiah lived a retired and a temperate life. It is the uniform tradition of the oriental Christians that he lived to the age of 120 years; see Hengstenberg' s Christol. vol. i. p. 278.
Where Isaiah lived is not certainly known nor are many of the circumstances of his life known. Isaiah' s permanent residence, in the earlier part of his prophetic life, seems to have been at Jerusalem. During the reign of the ungodly Ahaz, he came forth boldly as the reprover of sin, and evidently spent a considerable part of his time near the court, Isa. 7 and following. His counsels and warnings were then derided and disregarded. Hezekiah was a pious prince, and admitted Isaiah as a counselor, and was inclined to follow Isaiah advice. In Hezekiah' s reign Isaiah was treated with respect, and Isaiah had an important part in directing the public counsels during the agitating occurrences of that reign. If Isaiah lived in the time of Manasseh, he probably retired from public life; his counsel was unsought, and if offered, was disregarded. It is evident that he did not entirely withdraw from his office as a reprover Isa. 56-58, but his main employment seems to have been to contemplate the pure and splendid visions which relate to the happier times of the world, and which constitute the close of his prophecies, Isa. 40-66.
Of the family of Isaiah little is known. The Jewish writers constantly affirm that Isaiah was of noble extraction, and was closely connected with the royal family. The name of his father was Amoz, or "Amotz" - 'a?mo?ts ; not the prophet Amos, as some have supposed, for his name in Hebrew is 'amo?s , Amos. Amoz (Amotz), the father of Isaiah, the Jews affirm to have been the brother of Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, II Kings 14:1. Thus, David Kimchi on Isaiah 1:1, writes, ' We are ignorant of his family, from what tribe he was, except that our doctors have handed down by tradition, that Amotz and Amaziah were brothers.' And thus Rabbi Solomon says, ' It is handed down to us from our ancestors that Amotz and Amaziah were brothers.' The same is said also by Rabbi Levi (in Megilla, c. i. fol. 10); and by Abarbanel, Preface fol. 1 (quoted by Michaelis, Preface to Isa.) In this supposition there is nothing improbable: and the fact that he was admitted so freely to the counsels of Hezekiah, and that he went so boldly to Ahaz Isaiah 7:1, may seem to give some countenance to the idea that he was connected with the royal family.
Isaiah' s father was evidently well known; see Isaiah 1:1, and elsewhere, where his name is introduced. Indeed, it is not improbable that most of the prophets were descended from families that were highly respectable, since they generally mention the name of their father as a name that is well known; compare Ezekiel 1:3; Jeremiah 1:1; Hosea 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:1; Zechariah 1:1. In the other prophets the name of the "father" is omitted, probably because he was obscure and unknown. It is morally certain that Isaiah was not connected with the Levitical order, since if he had been, this would have been designated as in Jeremiah 1:1; Ezekiel 1:3. The wife of Isaiah is called "a prophetess" Isaiah 8:3, and it is supposed by some that she had the spirit of prophecy, but the more probable opinion is that the wives of the prophets were called prophetesses, as the wives of the priests were called "priestesses."
On the question as to whether Isaiah had more than one wife, see the notes at Isa. 7 and notes at Isa. 8. Two sons of Isaiah are mentioned, both of whom had names suited to awaken religious attention, and who were in some sense the pledges of the fulfillment of divine predictions. The name of the one was "Shear-Jashub" Isaiah 7:3, the meaning of which is, "the remainder shall return" - designed, undoubtedly, to be a sign or pledge that the remnant of the Jews who should be carried away at "any time" would return; or that the whole nation would not be destroyed and become extinct. This was one of the axioms or fundamental points in all the writings of this prophet; and whatever calamity or judgment he foretold, it was always terminated with the assurance that the nation would still be ultimately preserved, and greatly enlarged, and glorified. Isaiah seems to have resolved this idea to keep as much as possible before the minds of his countrymen, and to this end he gave his son a name that would be to them a pledge of his deep conviction of this truth.
The name of the other is "Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" Isaiah 8:1, "haste to the spoil; haste to the prey" - a name significant of the fact that the Assyrians Isa. 7 would soon ravage and subdue the land, or they would extensively plunder the kingdom of Judea. Tradition says that the death of Isaiah occurred in Jerusalem near the fountain of Siloam. Just below this fountain and opposite to the point where Mount Ophel terminates is a large mulberry-tree with a terrace of stones surrounding its trunk, where it is said Isaiah was sawn asunder; Robinson' s Bib. Research, i. 342. The tradition further is, that his body was buried here, whence it was removed to Paneas near the sources of the Jordan, and from thence to Constantinople in the year of our Lord 442 a.d.
Great respect was paid to Isaiah and his writings after his death. It is evident that Jeremiah imitated him (compare the notes at Isaiah 15:1-9 and notes at Isaiah 16:1-14); and there is abundant evidence that Isaiah was studied by the other prophets. The regard with which he was held by the Lord Jesus, and by the writers of the New Testament will be shown in another part of this introduction (section 6). Josephus (Ant. book 11, chapter 1, section 2) says that Cyrus was moved by the reading of Isaiah to the acknowledgment of the God of Israel, and to the restoration of the Jews, and to the rebuilding of the temple. After stating (section 1) the decree which Cyrus made in favor of the Jews, he adds, ' This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind of his prophecies: for this prophet had 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 will send back my people to their own land, and build my temple."
This was foretold by Isaiah 140 years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition came upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them permission to go back to their own country and to rebuild their city Jerusalem and the temple of their God. In this passage of Josephus there is an undoubted reference to Isaiah 44:28; ' That saith of Cyrus, He is my Shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid;' compare Isaiah 45:1 ff. On the genuineness of this passage of Josephus see Whiston' s note. It is justly remarked (see Jahn' s observation, quoted by Hengstenberg, Christol. i. 279) that this statement of Josephus furnishes the only explanation of the conduct of Cyrus toward the Jews. It is only a commentary on Ezra 1:2, where Cyrus says, ' Yahweh, the God of heaven and earth hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem which is in Judah.' It is incredible that Cyrus would not have seen the prophecy Isaiah 44:28 respecting himself before he made this proclamation.
The writings of the fathers are full of the praise of Isaiah. Jerome says of him that he is not so much to be esteemed a prophet as an evangelist. And he adds, ' he has so clearly explained the whole mystery of Christ and the church that you will regard him not as predicting future events but as composing a history of the past.' In Jerome' s "Epistle ad Paulinum" he says, ' Isaiah seems to me not to have composed a prophecy but the gospel!' And in Jerome' s preface he says, ' that in his (Isaiah' s) discourse he is so eloquent, and is a man of so noble and refined elocution, without any mixture of rusticity, that it is impossible to preserve or transfuse the beauty of his style in a translation;' compare the Confessions of Augustine, ix. 5; De Civita. Dei. lib. viii. c. 29. Moses Amyraldus said of Isaiah that he ' seems to thunder and give off lightning; he seems to confound and mingle not Greece, as was formerly said of Pericles; not Judea, and the neighboring regions, but heaven and earth and all the elements;' see Michaelis' Preface to Isaiah, pp. 8-10; compare Josephus, Ant. book 10, chapter 3; also Sirach 48:22.
' The style of Isaiah,' says Hengstenberg, Christol. vol. i. p. 281, ' is in general characterized by simplicity and sublimity; in the use of imagery, he holds an intermediate place between the poverty of Jeremiah and the exuberance of Ezekiel. In other respects, his style is suited to the subject, even changes with it. In his denunciations and threatenings, Isaih is earnest and vehement; in his consolations and instructions, on the contrary, Isaiah is mild and insinuating; in the strictly poetic passages, Isaiah is full of impetuosity and fire. He so lives in the events that he describes that the future becomes to him the same as the past and the present.'
It is now generally conceded that a considerable portion of Isaiah, like the other prophets, is poetry. For the establishment of this opinion, we are indebted mainly to Dr. Lowth. ' It has,' says he, (Prelim. Diss. to Isaiah) ' I think, been universally understood that the prophecies of Isaiah were written in prose. The style, the thoughts, the images, the expressions, have been allowed to be poetical, and that in the highest degree; but that they were written in verse, in measure, in rhythm, or whatever it is that distinguishes poetry the composition of those books of the Old Testament which are allowed to be poetical, such as Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs, from the historical books, as mere prose, this has never been supposed, at least has not been at any time the prevailing feeling.'
The main object of Lowth, in his "Preliminary Dissertation," was to demonstrate that the prophecies of Isaiah have all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry; a position which he has abundantly established, and which is admitted now by all to be correct. For a more extended view of the nature of Hebrew poetry, the reader may consult Barnes' introduction to the Book of Job.
In all ages, Isaiah has been regarded as the most sublime of all writers. He is simple, bold, rapid, elevated; he abounds in metaphor, and in rapid transitions; his writings are full of the most sublime figures of rhetoric and the most beautiful ornaments of poetry. Grotius compares him to Demosthenes. ' In his writings we meet with the purity of the Hebrew tongue, as in the orator with the delicacy of the Attic taste. Both are sublime and magnificent in their style; vehement in their emotions; copious in their figures; and very impetuous when they describe things of an enormous nature, or that are grievous and odious. Isaiah was superior to Demosthenes in the honor of illustrious birth.' Commentary on II Kings 19:2. It may be added here, that although his writings are not so ancient as those of Moses, or as those of Homer and Hesiod, yet they are more ancient than most of the admired Classic productions of Greece, and are far more ancient than any of the Latin Classics. As an "ancient writer" he demands respect. And laying out of view altogether the idea of his inspiration, and his "religious" character, he has a claim as a poet, an orator, a writer of eminent beauty and unrivaled sublimity to the attention of those who are seeking eminence in literature.
No reason can be given why in a course of mental training, Isaiah, and the language in which he wrote, should be neglected, while Hesiod and Homer, with the language in which they wrote, should be the objects of admiration and of diligent culture. In no book, perhaps, can the mere man of taste be more gratified than in the study of Isaiah; by no writings would the mind be more elevated in view of the beautiful and the sublime, or the heart be more refined by the contemplation of the pure. Few - very few of the Greek and Latin Classical writers - can be put into the hands of the young without endangering the purity of their morals; but Isaiah may be studied in all the periods of youth, and manhood, and old age, only to increase the virtue of the heart and the purity of the imagination, at the same time that he enriches and expands the understanding. And while no one who has just views of the inestimable value of the Greek and Latin Classics in most of the respects contemplated in education would wish to see them banished from the schools, or displaced from seminaries of learning, yet the lover of ancient writings, of purity of thought and diction, of sweet and captivating poetry, of the beautiful and sublime in writing, of perhaps the oldest language of the world, and of the pure sentiments of revelation, may hope that the time will come when the Hebrew language shall be deemed worthy of culture in American schools and colleges as well as the Latin and Greek; and that as a part of the training of American youth, Isaiah may be allowed to take a place "at least" as honorable as Virgil or Homer - as Cicero or Demosthenes.
It is indeed a melancholy reflection which we are compelled to make on the seminaries of learning in our land - a Christian land - that the writings of the Hebrew prophets and poets have been compelled to give place to the poetry and the mythology of the Greeks; and that the books containing the only system of pure religion are required to defer to those which were written under the auspices of idolatry, and which often express sentiments, and inculcate feelings, which cannot be made to contribute to the purity of the heart, or be reconciled with the truth as revealed from heaven. As specimens of taste; as models of richness of thought and beauty of diction; as well as for their being the vehicles in which the knowledge of the only true religion is conveyed to man, these writings have a claim on the attention of the young. If the writings of Isaiah were mere human compositions; if they had come down to us as the writings of Demosthenes and Homer have done; and if they had not been connected with "religion," we might be permitted to express the belief that the Jewish "Classics," along with the Classics of Greece and Rome, would have been allowed an honorable place in all the seminaries of learning, and in all the public and private libraries of the land.
Section 3. The Times of Isaiah
As we have seen, Isaiah lived for the greater part of a century, and possibly even more than a century. It is probable also that for a period of more than 70 years he exercised the prophetic function. During that long period, important changes must have occurred; and a knowledge of some of the leading events of his time is necessary to understand his prophecies. Indeed, a simple knowledge of historical facts will often make portions of his prophecies clear which would otherwise be entirely unintelligible.
The kingdom of Israel, which during the reigns of David and Solomon had been so mighty and so magnificent, was divided into two separate kingdoms 990 years before Christ, or 240 years before Isaiah entered into his prophetic office. The glory of these kingdoms had departed; and they had been greatly weakened by contentions with each other and by conflicts with surrounding nations. In a particular manner, the kingdom of Israel (Samaria, Ephraim, the ten tribes, as it was indiscriminately called) had been governed by a succession of wicked princes, had become deeply imbued with idolatry, and had so far provoked God as to make it necessary to remove them to a foreign land. It was during the time in which Isaiah discharged the duties of the prophetic function that that kingdom was utterly overturned and the inhabitants were transplanted to a distant country. In the year 736 b.c., or not far from 20 years after Isaiah entered into his work, Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria killed Rezin, king of Damascus, the ally of Pekah, the king of Samaria. Tiglath-Pileser entered the land of Israel and took many cities and captives, chiefly in Gilead and Galilee, and he carried many of the inhabitants to Assyria; II Kings 16:5-9; Amos 1:5; II Kings 15:29; I Chronicles 5:26.
This was the first captivity of the kingdom of Israel. Shalmaneser succeeded Tiglath-Pileser as king of Assyria in 724 b.c. In the year 721 b.c. Shalmaneser besieged Samaria, and, after a siege of three
