Victor L. Ludlow notes:
Isaiah reviewed in chapter 48 [corresponding to 1 Nephi 20] Israel’s covenant relationship by following a pattern developed in ancient contracts and treaties. He seems to follow a similar pattern in chapter 49 [corresponding to 1 Nephi 21] by modeling his discourse after an ancient court scene or contract lawsuit. In an ancient lawsuit, after one party broke a covenant or contract, the other party (the plaintiff) could call the accused before a judge or the elders of the community. A court would then be convened, following four steps: the summons, the plaintiff’s charge, the defendant’s plea, and the judge’s indictment.
The summons begins in verse 1. There is some confusion between the ultimate speaker (the Lord) and the immediate voice (Isaiah). Thus, Isaiah appears to be speaking in his own voice, but it makes more sense to hear him speaking for Yahweh, who is calling wayward Israel.
Application to Israel: This summons calls those who have been separated from Israel: “all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people.” Because he calls, not just Jerusalem but the House of Israel, the meaning would be those who had been carried away into captivity.
Application to Nephi’s Audience: When Isaiah calls, “Listen, O isles,” Nephi would feel that the scriptures were aimed directly at them. (See commentary accompanying 1 Nephi 19:10.) This was no abstract call; this was a prophetic voice reaching over the years and distance to call the family to repentance.
Comparison: Note the difference between the opening verse of Nephi’s version and the King James Version (bold for additions): “Hearken, O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people; yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people, O house of Israel. Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” Nephi’s version emphasizes the separation even more heavily than Isaiah. For Isaiah’s audience, the extra information would carry little additional information: but for Nephi and his audience, it would have sharp relevance.
Tvedtnes suggests reading the additional text in the Book of Mormon as a chiasmus:
(A) Hearken, o ye house of Israel
(B) all ye that are broken off
(C) and are driven out
(D) because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people;
(B’) yea, all ye that are broken off
(C’) that are scattered abroad
(A’) Who are of my people, O house of Israel
He adds: “Because this preface is in chiasmus, it is good evidence of the authenticity of the BP [Brass Plates] account, even though there are no supporting facts from the versions.”
The chiastic outline is not a perfect reversal in Tvedtnes’s scansion because he has separated elements (B, B’) and (C, C’) into different lines. These sets do not reverse but are rather directly parallel. It is more probable that these elements (B, C and B’, C’) are intended to be internal parallels in the same line. If we collapse B/C and B’/C’ into the same lines, rather than separating them then the general reversal is restored (B+C reverses B’+C’). The entire preface stresses the theme of separation that would be so poignant for the Nephites.