I’ve read the Old Testament cover to cover somewhere around 5 times. Every single time, I bog down in the Psalms, all 150 of them, then begin slogging. Every time I get mired even more in Isaiah…then hit chapter 40 and it all changes. Really, it changes a few chapters before then, when it switches from verse to prose. At chapter 40, it switches back to verse, but to me, it’s clearly a different voice.
All biblical scholars admit that Isaiah is split into at least two distinct sections. Most also believe that these sections have different authors. Part of their reasoning is that the speaker in deutero-Isaiah is speaking about a different time period. This is not a real impediment: if you take the concept of biblical prophecy at face value, shifting time periods isn’t a problem. To me, it’s clearly a different speaker. It’s hard to quantify, but when you’ve read a huge swath of writing like this, it just feels different. It’s the same reason that the New Testament book of Hebrews does not feel like it’s from Paul – you read a whole ton of Paul right before it, then you read Hebrews and say “that ain’t Paul.” (Hebrews never claims to be from Paul, by the way; the author is unknown.)
Some would take up a Biblical authority argument on behalf of a single author for Isaiah. I don’t see that as necessary. Just as no one takes (or should take) the placement of the Bible’s chapter breaks as inerrant/authoritative, it doesn’t seem to me like the organization of book structure needs be authoritative either. I have to say, and I say it to myself every time I read it, I thank God for Deutero-Isaiah. Especially after Proto-Isaiah.
Here’s more on the generally accepted view of Isaiah well-sourced from Wikipedia.
Interesting that the “but this particular verse was written for a different time period” argument isn’t used more often in contemporary political discourse! i.e., “Homosexuality being a sin was written for ALL time periods, but going to hell for being in the same room as a woman during her time of the month only applies to a ‘different, much earlier’ time period and is therefore irrelevant now.” It would basically solve all of the right-wing religio-conservatives’ problems.
Your point doesn’t have much to do with my post – even though I like the style and themes of deutero-Isaiah more, the first part of it is not less valid.
Still, you make a point that is not entirely unfair. I believe that what you say happens a lot. Still, it’s simplistic and probably shouldn’t be used in the way that you’re using it.
There are different sorts of laws in the Bible. Some apply to the ceremonial system instituted by God to give the Israelites an understanding of His sense of justice and holiness. These include those laws dealing with sacrifices, and are no longer in effect because of Christ’s replacement of that system with a better one. Similarly, there are laws associated with health and hygiene. Some of these are ceremonial, to set the Jews apart from their neighbors, while others are practical, to maintain a sanitary environment. One step further, there are laws associated with management of God’s nation, Israel. These are not in effect, as we are not Israel. These laws have all been obsoleted, and are not reinforced in the New Testament.
But then there are moral laws. These laws are still in effect and these laws are repeated by New Testament authors. The mechanism for dealing with the breaking of the laws (called “sin”) has changed, but the laws themselves have not. Homosexuality, according to Paul, falls into this category. It is qualitatively different than abstention from eating shrimp.
I’d say 90% of people who use the Bible to beat up people will not understand that distinction, and will be unable to refute your above statements. They don’t understand why they think that homosexuality, pre-marital sex, divorce, lust, greed and the like are wrong but having your period in the camp is OK. Just in case you get into a debate with someone who knows some basic theology, that’s the distinction…