Why Aren’t Biblical Prophecies Categorized Into Immediate And Future Events?
In Isaiah, why is it that prophecies of future events are side by side with prophecies of more immediate events. Won’t the text be more understandable if it was in order, and not jumbled up? I feel that this may be a reason why the Jews did not understand that there were to be two comings of the Messiah – because prophecies of his first and second comings appeared together.
The phenomenon you’re pointing out is true, not only in the book of Isaiah, but also in other books of the Bible where God gave prophetic pronouncements. Part of the prophetic pronouncement will be for something in the near future, and another part of the prophetic pronouncement will be for something more distant. The Old Testament proclaimed that a king (Jesus) would come from Bethlehem. And was Jesus the Messiah born in Bethlehem? Absolutely. Has He received His kingdom in fullness yet? He has not. He is a king, of course, but He has not exercised His kingly reign in full effect. Anybody who believes that Jesus is reigning now would also have to admit that He does not reign in the fullness in which He will one day reign. There will be a greater dimension to the reign of Jesus Christ at a later time. That’s one example out of many.
Why didn’t God do it differently? I don’t know if I have an adequate answer to that question. In the Western world, we tend to be very linear and chronological in our thinking. We are accustomed to think that the best way to tell a story is to start at the beginning and go chronologically through it to the end. We tend to value telling a story in chronological order. It’s good to be aware that to the Near Eastern mind of Hebraic and biblical cultures in both Old and New Testament, that factor not regarded with as much value.
The failure of prophetic pronouncements to order themselves chronologically can sometimes be an annoyance to us. It seems illogical to modern minds. But I think it fits more naturally into the literary culture in which the Bible was written. To them, it wouldn’t seem out of place at all. They just put a lower priority on telling accounts in a chronological order.
That’s the best rationale I can offer. I know you’re not questioning God and calling into question His Word. You’re just asking a logical question, “Hey, is there a reason why God did it this way?” I think that sort of question is natural to our modern cultural mindset. We expect that the only proper way to explain something is in chronological order. But that was much less of a value in ancient Hebraic literature and culture.