- Oct 22, 2019
- 7,503
- 2,336
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Now first, the chapter begins that this is the burden of Babylon, so the first thing people would think is this is about when the Persian Empire took over the Babylonians
However
Isaiah 13 contains several references to the Day of the Lord, including signs that Jesus gave during the Olivet Discourse, and shown in Revelation 6 at the 6th seal:
The Darkening of the Sun and Moon is the most common sign associated with the Day of the Lord, Joel 2 speaks of it, it's mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, and in Revelation 6, along with an Earthquake and other signs in the sky like the heavens being shaken/rolled up like a scroll.
Matthew 24:
However, despite all this Day of the Lord language....
Isaiah 13:
I have a lot of trouble accepting that this passage in Isaiah 13 was about the conquest of Babylon BC despite the text mentioning the Medes because of over 1000 years of it being inhabited and being an important city.
So how is this reconciled? It talks about the Day of the Lord, which I believe is future, and has to deal with the return of Jesus, which has not happened yet.
But it's talking about Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Medes, which would point in the past, and yet.. mentions that this event leaves it in uninhabitable ruins which doesn't line up with history either.
Isaiah 14 further goes into how the King of Babylon is equated with Lucifer, and also refers to him as the Assyrian, an empire that if using a historicist or preterist interpretation of this, the Assyrians had been destroyed before the Neo Babylonian Empire, it was what led to the Neo Babylonian Empire becoming a power; the Medes and Babylonians conquering Assyria.
The one thing I can think is that both titles, the Assyrian, and the King of Babylon, refer to the yet future Antichrist, as Micah 5 refers to the one destroyed by the Messiah as the Assyrian. It would of course explain the equation with Lucifer.
It can also be referring to Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18, rather than Historic Babylon, Babylon there has ships sailing to it, and Historic Babylon was inland.
However.. the Medes part still throws me for a loop.
It doesn't fit history, because of continued inhabitation, and, I don't really see elsewhere in scripture where there's a possible connection to future Medes. Future Persians yes, Ezekiel 38 and 39.
But not specifically the Medes.
I don't see a reconciliation in either a historical interpretation or a futurist interpretation, and I don't accept that the destruction spoken of was just.. the historic Medo-Persian conquest and remaining inhabited and important for 1000 years, and only 500 years after that being abandoned to ruins, as fulfillment.
That's not good enough for an Omniscient God who declares the end from the beginning.
However
Isaiah 13 contains several references to the Day of the Lord, including signs that Jesus gave during the Olivet Discourse, and shown in Revelation 6 at the 6th seal:
6 Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
The Darkening of the Sun and Moon is the most common sign associated with the Day of the Lord, Joel 2 speaks of it, it's mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, and in Revelation 6, along with an Earthquake and other signs in the sky like the heavens being shaken/rolled up like a scroll.
Matthew 24:
Revelation 6:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
In these two locations, it cannot be referring to when the Medes and Persians destroyed Babylon, Jesus was presenting it as a yet future event from His time on Earth, and Revelation presented it as yet future past Jesus' resurrection, so it was not referring to the Day Jesus was crucified, even though those signs happened on a local scale when Jesus was crucified.12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
However, despite all this Day of the Lord language....
Isaiah 13:
and while currently Babylon is ruins, it was inhabited for a long time after the Persians took it over, Alexander took it over too, so did the Romans briefly, and then it was still a regional seat of power under future Persian empires until the Muslims took it over, it fell into decay, and was ultimately abandoned around 1000AD.17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
I have a lot of trouble accepting that this passage in Isaiah 13 was about the conquest of Babylon BC despite the text mentioning the Medes because of over 1000 years of it being inhabited and being an important city.
So how is this reconciled? It talks about the Day of the Lord, which I believe is future, and has to deal with the return of Jesus, which has not happened yet.
But it's talking about Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Medes, which would point in the past, and yet.. mentions that this event leaves it in uninhabitable ruins which doesn't line up with history either.
Isaiah 14 further goes into how the King of Babylon is equated with Lucifer, and also refers to him as the Assyrian, an empire that if using a historicist or preterist interpretation of this, the Assyrians had been destroyed before the Neo Babylonian Empire, it was what led to the Neo Babylonian Empire becoming a power; the Medes and Babylonians conquering Assyria.
The one thing I can think is that both titles, the Assyrian, and the King of Babylon, refer to the yet future Antichrist, as Micah 5 refers to the one destroyed by the Messiah as the Assyrian. It would of course explain the equation with Lucifer.
It can also be referring to Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18, rather than Historic Babylon, Babylon there has ships sailing to it, and Historic Babylon was inland.
However.. the Medes part still throws me for a loop.
It doesn't fit history, because of continued inhabitation, and, I don't really see elsewhere in scripture where there's a possible connection to future Medes. Future Persians yes, Ezekiel 38 and 39.
But not specifically the Medes.
I don't see a reconciliation in either a historical interpretation or a futurist interpretation, and I don't accept that the destruction spoken of was just.. the historic Medo-Persian conquest and remaining inhabited and important for 1000 years, and only 500 years after that being abandoned to ruins, as fulfillment.
That's not good enough for an Omniscient God who declares the end from the beginning.