Isaiah 21:1

THE BURDEN OF BABYLON;

THE BURDEN OF EDOM;

THE BURDEN OF ARABIA

Three "burdens" are delivered by the prophet in this chapter: that of Babylon (Isaiah 21:1-10), that of Edom (Isaiah 21:11-12), and that of Arabia (Isaiah 21:13-17).

THE BURDEN OF BABYLON (Isaiah 21:1-10)

The critical community as a whole have decided that this prophecy applies to the fall of Babylon to Cyrus and Darius, which occurred long after Isaiah's lifetime; and, of course, in keeping with their crazy rule that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy they imagine that it had to have been written "after the exile," in 539 B.C.[1] It is true that there are expressions in these ten verses which seem to point squarely to that drunken feast of Belshazzar and the fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians; but our confident conviction remains the same. Even if this passage does apply to that overthrow, Isaiah must still be accepted as the author of the chapter, because, as Cheyne said, "Both the ideas of the passage and the phraseology are in harmony with the authorship of Isaiah."[2] As a matter of fact, it is altogether possible that the prophecy, looking forward to the distant future, has a double application, as we shall see. In a similar manner, the prophecy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24 applies: (1) to the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that occurred within forty years, and (2) to the final advent of Christ, an event that has not occurred yet.

That the "burden" here is a reference, primarily, to an event much earlier than the exile was affirmed by Dummelow thus:

"This siege can scarcely be the one at the close of the exile. Assyrian researchers have revealed three earlier sieges: (1) in 710 B.C. by Sargon; (2) in 703 B.C., and (3) in 696 B.C. by Sennacherib. Accordingly, the prophecy may be dated after 710 or 703 B.C. (but prior to conquest and fall of the city in 696 B.C.)."[3]

Thus, Dummelow joined Cheyne and other discerning scholars in rejecting the post-exilic date and in the acceptance of a date consistent both with Isaiah's authorship and the predictive nature of the prophecy. We shall cite some of the reasons why this understanding is absolutely required by the passage itself.

(1) The facts presented, the style and spirit of the author, the phraseology used, and the correspondence with the other writings of Isaiah all point squarely at the great eighth century prophet as the author. (2) Note the grief and depression of Isaiah upon reporting this revelation from God. The notion of some that Isaiah was simply overcome emotionally at the fall of Babylon makes no sense at all. Why should he have been grieved at the overthrow and destruction of that wicked power that had defeated Judah, carried them into captivity, etc.? On the other hand, if this is a prophecy of the fall of Babylon to Sennacherib in 696, which we believe it is, then it is clear why the prophecy was bad news to Isaiah. It meant that Judah's last hope of some earthly power to intervene against Assyria had failed, and that Judah would have to face the full terror of Assyrian assault, which, of course they did, only a few years after this prophecy was given. (3) The author of this prophecy (humanly speaking) was not in Babylon but in Jerusalem when it was written. "Isaiah 21:6-9 imply a distance from Babylon."[4] (4) The conclusive argument against the event of 539 B.C. as being the primary focus here lies in the character of the conqueror prophesied. Note that, "All of the graven images of her gods are broken down to the ground" (Isaiah 21:9). By no stretch of imagination is this a view of the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.; but it was definitely a picture of what happened under Sennacherib in 696. It is a known fact that, "Cyrus was not an iconoclast; he did not break into pieces, nor in any way destroy or insult the Babylonian idols. On the contrary, he retained them in their several shrines, or restored them where they had been replaced."[5]

The fact thus cited, namely, that the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C., did not provide the "broken images" required by the prophecy's fulfillment lies behind statements like that of Hailey: "This (the prophecy) does not necessarily indicate that the conqueror has destroyed the images, but that Jehovah's power has triumphed over the powerless gods of the heathen."[6] Barnes, in a similar statement, said that it means, "In spite of its idols, the whole city would be mined."[7] These comments are not untrue as regards what they say, but they have no reference whatever to this prophecy or its fulfillment; but one writer even wrote that the fulfillment was "spiritual," admitting that no images were broken! Such an interpretation is incorrect. There could not possibly have been anything "spiritual" about a conquest of Babylon, either by the Assyrians or the Medo-Persians.

There are further evidences which we shall note in the comments below; but these are sufficient to demonstrate that the 539 B.C. fall of Babylon cannot possibly be the primary focus of these verses.

Isaiah 21:1

"The burden of the wilderness of the sea. As whirlwinds in the South sweep through, it cometh from the wilderness, a terrible land."

This is a surprising title of Babylon; "But it plainly means Babylon,"[8] as clearly stated in Isaiah 21:9 below. Why, then, should it have been called "wilderness of the desert"? Lowth believed it was because the whole area of Babylon was indeed once a desert, and that it was recovered by an intricate system of irrigation, using the waters of the Euphrates. There could also be an overtone here of the ultimate fate of Babylon, which included its return to desert status. "This title probably includes the whole tract of waste land west of the Euphrates."[9]

The reference to the Euphrates as "a sea" is not uncommon in the Bible. Barnes says this probably came about due to a fact mentioned by Herodotus, that before the system of irrigation was developed, "The river often overflowed the whole area like a sea."[10] For the very same reason, the Nile also was called "a sea."