Introduction to the Prophetic Books

Fourth, the prophets warn that judgment will eradicate sin. This judgment is often called the “day of the Lord” (Isa. 2:12–22; Joel 2:1–11; Zeph. 1:7–18; etc.; see note on Amos 5:18–20). This is a day in history, as when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon (Jer. 42:18), but it is also a day to come, when God will judge all the world’s inhabitants (Isa. 24:1–23). The prophets recorded these warnings in writing so readers can do what the prophets’ original audience usually failed to do—turn from sin to God.

Fifth, the prophets promise that renewal lies beyond the day of punishment that has occurred already in history and beyond the coming day that will bring history as we know it to a close. The coming of the Savior lies beyond the destruction of Israel and other such events. He will rule Israel and the nations, and he will bring peace and righteousness to the world (Isa. 9:2–7; 11:1–16). This Savior must suffer, die, and rise from the dead (Isa. 52:13–53:12). He will be “like a son of man,” and “the Ancient of Days” (God himself) will give him all the kingdoms of the world (Dan. 7:9–14). He will be the catalyst for a new covenant with Israel that will include all those, Jew or Gentile, whom God’s Spirit fills and changes (Jer. 31:31–40; Ezek. 34:25–31; 36:22–32). This new people will serve him faithfully. Eventually he will cleanse the world of sin and recreate the earth (Isa. 65:17–25; 66:18–24; Zeph. 3:8–20). The creation now spoiled by sin will be whole again.

The past two centuries have seen many debates concerning the Prophetic Books. These discussions include many facets but may be summarized in the following categories: unity, authenticity, and relationship to the NT.

For centuries most scholars basically accepted that the Prophetic Books were written by the persons whose names were mentioned at the beginning of the books (Isa. 1:1; Jer. 1:1–3; etc.). They did so because they held traditional beliefs about the inspiration and authority of the Bible (see Ps. 19:1–14; 2 Tim. 3:14–17; 2 Pet. 1:21) yet also because the books are as well attested by other ancient sources, and as coherent in content and style, as any surviving ancient books.

Beginning in the late 1700s, however, several scholars began to argue that differences within individual books indicate that they were not composed of the words of the persons that the books name as the source of the material. For example, they noted that the book of Isaiah stresses judgment and renewal, mentions Assyria and Babylon as conquerors of Israel, and describes exile and return from exile. Therefore, they posited at least two authors, one who lived in the eighth century b.c. and one who lived in the sixth century, with perhaps a third in the fifth century. They soon made similar arguments about other prophetic books. As they continued to find other differences, they suggested still more authors. By the early 1900s such scholars wrote freely about the “authentic” passages (written or spoken by the persons the Bible names as authors) and the “inauthentic” passages (written by later editors of the books).

Many of these critical scholars also concluded that the OT prophets did not predict future events in the manner the NT claims. Rather, in their view the prophets wrote about events of their own day, but NT writers applied these texts to Jesus, the church, and other subjects. Thus, the unity of the OT and the NT, which Jesus and Paul are portrayed as affirming (Matt. 5:17–20; John 5:45–46; 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:14–17), simply does not exist. Church tradition may treat the Bible as a unity, but, they argued, historical research does not confirm that belief.

Evangelical scholars responded to these trends in several ways. First, they reaffirmed their belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible and in the Holy Spirit’s ability to provide information on the future to the prophets. Second, they observed that the OT and NT writers—the closest witnesses to the time of the books’ writing and the most ancient teachers of that word—never name any writers of a biblical book other than the ones listed in the OT. Third, they offered treatments of the books that explained how the passages in question could come from the time period the books mention. Fourth, they described how the NT writers used the OT books in a contextual, not arbitrary, manner.

Recently evangelical scholars have been joined by less traditional experts in their critique of many of these assertions by critical scholars. These experts believe that differences in emphasis in a book do not necessarily mean different authors, since an author may stress many diverging themes that eventually constitute a unified composition. For instance, in order for a Greek comedy to end happily, there must be some negative reality overcome. For a Greek tragedy to end sadly, there must be some joy lost. Similarly, the prophetic message included punishment on the way to renewal and sin that marred the nation’s once-positive relationship with God. The presence of different concepts helps comprise the whole; it does not necessitate multiple authors.

Despite this emerging agreement on the unified content of the Prophetic Books, evangelical scholars and their counterparts still often disagree on how the books came together. Many evangelical scholars continue to hold to the unity of the books as the words of the prophets that the books themselves identify, while their dialogue partners believe that the unity came about through the careful work of editors over a long period of time. What remains at stake in these discussions is the truthfulness of the text’s claims to originate from a particular person in a particular era, addressing items specific to that era as well as items in the future. It is the special calling of the particular prophet that gives his writing canonical authority for God’s people (Deut. 18:18–19).

As prepositions are to the letters of Paul, so pronouns are to the oracles of the prophets: crucial for meaning, but often puzzling. Hebrew prophets delivered messages on God’s behalf, so identifying who is being addressed, and who is being spoken about, is central to understanding their preaching. Naturally, use of pronouns (“I,” “we,” “you,” “she,” etc.) can frustrate modern readers when their antecedent (the actual person or entity being referred to) either is missing or could have more than one possible candidate. Although pronoun confusion arises most naturally in the Prophets, it also crops up in the prayers of the Psalms. Sometimes modern biblical translations smooth out such difficulties for the reader by specifying the referent or adjusting the pronouns. The esv approach, in general, prefers to represent the pronouns in English as equivalent to those appearing in the Hebrew, and not to make decisions for the reader about their referents.

In prophetic literature, confusing pronoun references occur especially in the following cases: (1) unmarked interjections; (2) unsignaled transitions in oracles or other passages; (3) differences in ancient and modern conventions for pronouns; and (4) obscurity in a passage beyond simply its pronouns. Also, (5) an author might be addressing the people as a whole (personified as a single “you”). The following are examples for each scenario.

(1) Who is “he” in Zechariah 10:11? The Lord speaks as “I” on either side of this verse; ancient versions and commentators often read “they” here, to link back to the last word of Zechariah 10:10. However, the context suggests that the action of Zechariah 10:10 belongs to the Lord, and in Zechariah 10:12b, the Lord’s own voice seems to refer to himself in the third person (“his name”). Here the prophet’s voice and the Lord’s seem fused, and in spite of changing between “I” and “he/him,” the reference is consistently to God.

(2) Who is “us” in Isaiah 41:22? The first-person plural reference continues in Isaiah 41:23, and then reappears in Isaiah 41:26, but never with an explicit referent. Here, help comes from the wider context. The setting is the divine courtroom (“set forth your case,” Isa. 41:21), and this is introduced at Isaiah 41:1 (“let us draw near for judgment”), so “us” in Isaiah 41:22 remains the members of the divine court who are hearing the case against the idols of Isaiah 41:7.

(3) Who is “her” in Micah 7:10? The answer partly depends on who is “me” in Micah 7:8. “My enemy” in Micah 7:8, 10 is grammatically feminine (Hb. ’oyabti), and so is the antecedent for “her” in Micah 7:10. It is likely, then, that the first-person voice is also feminine (cf. Mic. 6:9; 7:11)—Jerusalem personified. In biblical convention, cities are referred to as feminine and nations as masculine—unlike modern English usage in which cities are normally neuter (“it”) and nations are feminine.

(4) A genuine difficulty is the “they” (fem.) reference of Ezekiel 30:17, represented in the esv by “women” but with a textual note, “Or the cities; Hebrew they.” The translation adopted in the text takes its cue from “young men” in Ezekiel 30:17a and “daughters” of Ezekiel 30:18b. “Cities” remains possible (see example 3), as “On” and “Pi-beseth” are the closest immediate antecedents in context.

(5) The prophets can personify God’s people, viewed corporately, as if a single person. In Isaiah 41:8–10, “you” (masculine singular) refers to “Jacob,” the whole people portrayed as God’s “servant” (to accomplish his purposes for the world). It is to the people viewed corporately that God promises, “I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you” (Isa. 41:10). Similarly, in Isaiah 49:15–16, God addresses “you” (this time feminine singular), a personification of Zion (Isa. 49:14), representing the whole people (see also Isa. 54:1–17).

Awareness of these possibilities should assist the reader in untangling some of the pronoun references that might initially seem difficult to understand.