Recently, Christopher Fantuzzo, lecturer in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary delivered a candidating lecture on Isaiah 59:21 and its position in the book. The passage is as follows.
21″And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from this time forth and forevermore.”
Many critics argue (or simply assert) that Isa 59:21 is a later addition that doesn’t belong where it currently resides in the canon. Claus Westermann in his commentary on Isa 40-66 writes
Verse 21 diverges so much in both style and subject-matter from 59:1-10 that this cannot have been its original placing. Practically all editors [Sic. critics] agree in this [p. 352].
In Westermnann’s judgment the verse is a fragment that should be in Isaiah 26, but he unfortunately does not provide a reason. Likewise, Paul D. Hanson in his Dawn of Apocalyptic and Isaiah 40-66 skips over the verse entirely. It isn’t even mentioned.  In my opinion, these approaches betray something deeply concerning regarding the approach to God’s Word.
Fantuzzo, however, presented an excellent case for leaving verse 21 just where it is.  At this time, I do not want to focus on the particular points of his argument opting instead to look at his methodology. In short, Fantuzzo argues that we should focus our interpretation on the text as it has been received because it provides a much better opportunity for letting the text speak for itself. For him, a main feature of proper exegesis is recognizing that the parts of a text of Scripture exist in an ordered whole. Hence, exegesis must begin by appealing to discourse features within the finished form of a book rather than beginning with a critical construct (a la tradition-history, form-criticism, rhetorical criticism, etc.).
He proceeded to start with Isa 59:21 by looking at its internal characteristics but then moved to the more immediate context of 58:1-59:20. As he works through the textual and thematic linkages Fantuzzo concludes that Isa 59:21 is “a key verse for appreciating the total vision of the book of Isaiah and its contribution to Holy Scripture.” The methodology is refreshing and I think quite helpful for preachers struggling to see the significance of Sunday’s passage.
To be faithful to the text in its final form, we must start with the immediate section, then progressively move our way out to the entire book. We can then shift to the immediate canonical context on to the entire canon available at the time of the book’s writing. Finally we must see our passage in the light of the entire canon. If we do not treat the text in its relation to the ordered whole, we will not understand its import.  I find this to be a healthy alternative to critical approaches and one that does justice to a Vossian view of biblical theology.  Being faithful to God’s Word in one of its parts means being faithful to God’s Word as an organic whole.
–
Much of this material was adapted from Fantuzzo’s lecture and course handouts for his class Prophetical Books at Westminster Theological Seminary.
Indeed, it was a superb lecture !!
His course material is excellent. As I’m reading through it studying for the final, I’m reminded of Dr. Gaffin’s Acts and Paul.
At last! Someone who undestrndas! Thanks for posting!
I understand that he saw that course as a model for his material.
Very much so, Bill. The paper requirements for the course modeled this approach as well.
I would love to see your notes sometime.