Isaiah 13

PART 3.

The collection of prophecies in regard to the heathen, chaps. 13-23. INTRODUCTION.

In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as well as in Isaiah, the prophecies in regard to the heathen are placed together by themselves. They are arranged here, possibly not in chronological order, but probably as most suitably following the cycle of Messianic prophecies contained in chapters vii-xii, where the thought is, that all kingdoms shall, in Messianic times, be embraced in the kingdom of Immanuel; and in this collection the same thought is virtually expanded. These prophecies, relating to Immanuel, were given in the period when the great world-kingdoms, especially the Assyrian, were the occasion of alarm for the fate of Israel and Judah; and minor heathen kingdoms, having no love for these, were like to follow up advantages in their own interest against them. Though arranged in a series, the prophecies are really independent, yet the foregoing prophecy in chapters vii-xii forms a fundamental unity and substance for them all.

The first in the series is embraced in Isaiah 13:1 to Isaiah 14:27.

THE ORACLE CONCERNING THE BABYLONIANS, AND THE NATIONS SUCCESSIVE TO THEM.

Some of these prophecies exhibit a peculiar variety of style, and not a few of the German critics see in this a reason for Isaiah not being their author; as if such a versatile mind, capable of dealing in every imaginable phase of poetic representation, and having throughout his writings at ready command every several kind of style and every several change of delineation, is to be ruled out of authorship for a slight change of style and diction here and there! Such a canon rigidly applied would upset confidence in the now unquestioned authorship of half the ancient and modern classics; of Horace, of Virgil, of Shakspeare, of Racine, and indefinitely of others. The same critics are put to their worst because these two chapters prophesy and treat of historic facts implying knowledge of what happened hundreds of years after the lifetime of Isaiah. With them there is no such thing as prophetic inspiration; and, of course, with them the writer here must have written during or after the events. Of all their criticisms this is the most important issue. If there cannot be prophetic foresight, then, of course, the writing is ex even-tu. But if there be inspiration and prophetic foresight, as has been claimed by the title, the terms, and the immemorial uniform position of these writings a position as old as the text itself then, regardless of the assumption of varieties of phraseology, diction, syntax, and style, assumed as obvious to the delicate critical sense by one set of this school, though denied by another set of the same school then, be it repeated, the claim that Isaiah cannot be their author fails entirely. The argument for prophetic inspiration may be waived here; it belongs to apologetic theology. Nor is it here legitimate, as the burden of proof falls upon its doubters and deniers.

There is a difficulty created by even orthodox interpreters, which needs a brief notice. It is that of finding in this prophecy its fulfilment in the immediate and complete downfall of Babylon, as apparently predicted; whereas Babylon was totally blotted out only in a long course of ages. The true solution of this difficulty is, that this prediction, like some others uttered by Isaiah, is generic, not specific; “not a detailed account of one event exclusively, but a prophetic picture of the fall of Babylon considered as a whole, some of the traits being taken from the first and some from the last stage of the fatal process, while others are indefinite or common to all. The same idea may be otherwise expressed by saying, that the king of Babylon whose fall is here predicted is neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Belshazzar, but the kings of Babylon collectively; or rather, an ideal king of Babylon, in whom the character and fate of the whole empire concentrated.” Alexander.