Alfred Martin. Isaiah. Moody Publishers, 1956, 2018. See here to purchase the book.
This book is part of the Everyman Bible Commentary series. It is a
reprint of a book that was originally published in 1956. The author,
Alfred Martin, had a Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He also
served as Vice-President and Dean of Education at Moody Bible Institute
and taught at Dallas Bible College.
Rather than serving as a comprehensive commentary, the book comments
on highlights in the Book of Isaiah. Its comments are largely
homiletical, yet they focus on details of select texts. Occasionally,
Martin weighs in on a piece of scholarly minutiae, as when he disputes
the scholarly view that Isaiah received his prophetic commission after
the death of King Uzziah (Isaiah 6:1); for Martin, Isaiah received it
before then.
Martin takes frequent swipes at liberal and non-Christian
interpretations of Isaiah, as well as Christian interpretations that
differ from his own. Martin believes in one Isaiah who wrote before the
exile rather than more than one author of the book who wrote during the
pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic periods. He thinks that the Book
of Isaiah makes predictions that were directly relevant to Isaiah’s
historical situation, but also prophecies concerning Jesus Christ and
the time of the end. Based on I Peter 1:10-11, Martin contends that
Isaiah lacked a full understanding of how God’s prophecies to him would
be fulfilled. Martin disputes the liberal scholarly idea that ancient
Israel was henotheistic and tribalistic, instead seeing its
divinely-inspired religion as monotheistic and universalistic: it held
that God was the only truly existing God and had sovereignty over and
concern for all nations, not just Israel. Martin interprets the
Suffering Servant as the Messiah, Jesus Christ, not as the nation of
Israel. His approach is also literal and dispensational. As far as
Martin is concerned, Isaiah’s prophecies have been and will be fulfilled
literally, meaning they are not allegorical; in addition, what is
spoken about Israel is about Israel, not the church. At the same time,
Martin believes that believers can derive spiritual application from the
Book of Isaiah.
There are times when Martin presents actual arguments in favor of
these ideas. He notes common themes throughout the Book of Isaiah
(i.e., the highway), indicating, to him, that it is all the work of one
author. He observes that the Book of Isaiah discusses the outcome of
nations other than Israel and affirms the God of Israel’s reality
against the un-reality of other gods, showing that it is far from
henotheistic and tribalistic. For Martin, the Suffering Servant makes
more sense as a righteous individual rather than the nation of Israel,
which is far from righteous, throughout the Book of Isaiah. Martin
looks at how the New Testament approaches the Book of Isaiah and notices
that it treats several of Isaiah’s prophecies as being literally about
Jesus Christ, and as finding their literal fulfillment in the work of
Jesus Christ. Martin deems that to be evidence about the prophecies’
original meaning, and Martin thinks that liberal scholars’ disagreement
with him on this is a spiritual more than an academic problem. And,
against Christians who interpret the prophecies as symbolic and as about
the church, Martin argues that, if the prophecies are literal in
describing Christ’s sufferings, then they must be literal in all other
areas, as well.
One can critique Martin’s approach. Martin makes a fairly decent
argument that the Book of Isaiah is monotheistic and universalistic, but
scholars have still had reasons for concluding that henotheism finds
expression in certain biblical writings. See Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where
the Most High gives Israel to the LORD and other nations to other gods.
There are occasions in which the New Testament appears to apply Old
Testament prophecies in a less-than-literal fashion. Reading Old
Testament prophecies about the Gentiles’ worship of God in a literal
fashion, one would conclude that such worship would take place after
Israel is restored and God establishes a paradise on earth, with
physical Israel as the center. The New Testament, however, seems to
hold that such prophecies are finding fulfillment in the church age, as
Gentiles join the Christian church (see Acts 15:14-18; Romans 15:7-12).
Contrary to the impression that Martin leaves, scholars who believe
differently from him have actual reasons for their conclusions.
Martin’s Christological interpretation of Isaiah also leads to some
awkward conclusions. For example, Martin wants to interpret the
Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 as Jesus Christ, since Matthew 1:23 does so.
Yet, Isaiah 7 at least appears to treat Immanuel as a child in Isaiah’s
time, as events in Immanuel’s life and experience serve as a sign
regarding events in Isaiah’s day. How does Martin handle this? He
says: “The thought seems to be that if the baby Immanuel was born in the
immediate future, before He would be old enough to make known His
distinction between good and evil, the two enemy kings would withdraw”
(pages 43-44). So Isaiah is presenting a hypothetical: Immanuel would
be born centuries later, but Isaiah is saying that, if Immanuel were
born in Isaiah’s lifetime, his life would serve as a timetable for
events in Isaiah’s day. That sounds like a stretch! Martin wants to
interpret the voice in the wilderness in Isaiah 40:3 as a literal
prediction about John the Baptist, since the Gospels say that it is
about John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23).
But why would Isaiah talk about John the Baptist, within a larger
discussion about the restoration of the exiled Jews from Babylonian
exile? How does John the Baptist relate to that? Martin fails to
explain.
There may be something to Martin’s method, however. Jews and
Christians did interpret Isaiah as concerning not only events in
Isaiah’s day, but in reference to Israel’s larger story and place in
God’s eschatological plan. Martin does not endorse canonical criticism,
but one could make the case that, within the Book of Isaiah itself, old
prophecies are updated and applied to new situations, showing that even
some of the writers, editors, and organizers of the book believed that
it was about more than the eighth century B.C.E. Martin’s book would
have been better had it explained more fully why God would tell people
of Isaiah’s day about events in the far-off future, but Martin
occasionally offered something to chew on, as when he said that Isaiah
presented Israel’s deliverance from Babylon as “a foretaste of an even
greater deliverance” (page 127).
Martin offered intriguing interpretations. He believes that the
Gospel is in Isaiah 59: Israel is alienated from God, God notices the
absence of an intercessor, so God sends a redeemer. Martin’s
interpretation of Isaiah 6:9-13 was faithful to what the chapter says:
Isaiah would not gain many converts, but God would preserve a remnant.
Such a theme, as Martin observes, extends beyond Isaiah’s time and is
cited in the New Testament (Romans 9). The book is edifying, as it
attempts to provide a justification for God’s ways, presenting them as
righteous. Martin can be mocking towards other perspectives, as when he
disparages liberal Christians who speak with an exalted tone about the
“lowly Nazarene” while rejecting the substitutionary atonement. I roll
my eyes at those types, too! Still, the book has a certain gravitas, as
Martin speaks with weight and seriousness.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.