AN ORACLE CONCERNING the Desert by the Sea:
Like whirlwinds sweeping through the southland,
an invader comes from the desert,
from a land of terror.
2A dire vision has been shown to me:
The traitor betrays, the looter takes loot.
Elam, attack! Media, lay siege!
I will bring to an end all the groaning she caused.
3At this my body is racked with pain,
pangs seize me, like those of a woman in labor;
I am staggered by what I hear,
I am bewildered by what I see.
4My heart falters,
fear makes me tremble;
the twilight I longed for
has become a horror to me.
5They set the tables,
they spread the rugs,
they eat, they drink!
Get up, you officers,
oil the shields!
6This is what the Lord says to me:
“Go, post a lookout
and have him report what he sees.
7When he sees chariots
with teams of horses,
riders on donkeys
or riders on camels,
let him be alert,
fully alert.”
8And the lookout shouted,
“Day after day, my lord, I stand on the watchtower;
every night I stay at my post.
9Look, here comes a man in a chariot
with a team of horses.
And he gives back the answer:
‘Babylon has fallen, has fallen!
All the images of its gods
lie shattered on the ground!’”
10O my people, crushed on the threshing floor,
I tell you what I have heard
from the LORD Almighty,
from the God of Israel.
11An oracle concerning Dumah:
Someone calls to me from Seir,
“Watchman, what is left of the night?
Watchman, what is left of the night?”
12The watchman replies,
“Morning is coming, but also the night.
If you would ask, then ask;
and come back yet again.”
13An oracle concerning Arabia:
You caravans of Dedanites,
who camp in the thickets of Arabia,
14bring water for the thirsty;
you who live in Tema,
bring food for the fugitives.
15They flee from the sword,
from the drawn sword,
from the bent bow
and from the heat of battle.
16This is what the Lord says to me: “Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. 17The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few.” The LORD, the God of Israel, has spoken.
Original Meaning
AS MENTIONED AT the beginning of this section on the oracles against the nations (Isa. 13–23), it is difficult to know whether there is an intentional order. It does seem possible to see certain groupings. We began with the Mesopotamian powers of Babylon and Assyria (chs. 13–14) and then moved to the neighbors Philistia, Moab, Aram, and Israel (chs. 14–17). Chapter 18 formed an interlude chapter, where Ethiopia was used to focus on the lordship of Yahweh over all nations. Then came the oracle against Egypt (chs. 19–20).
But what about the remaining chapters? Some scholars believe that the four oracles in chapters 21 and 22 should be considered together,1 but the reasons given vary. Most comment on the prophet’s clear sense of grief over what he sees happening. Many also observe the enigmatic titles of the first, second, and fourth oracles. I have proposed that the first refers to Babylon, while the second, third, and fourth all refer to Arabia, who will be failed by it.2
The Desert by the Sea (21:1–10)
THE TITLE OF this oracle is a puzzle. Literally it is “the burden of the desert of the sea.” Clearly, that is a contradiction in terms: The desert is not wet, and the sea is not dry. So what is the writer intending to convey? Verse 9 suggests that the subject is Babylon, so why use this obscure title? Furthermore, if the subject is Babylon, what destruction is being talked about? The mention of Elam and Media (21:2) suggests the final destruction in 540 B.C., because prior to that time the Medes were allies of Babylon, not enemies. Yet the general time frame of this section (chs. 13–23) seems to be relating to events closer to Isaiah’s own time. So perhaps the prophet is telescoping together several destructions, beginning with those near his own time and culminating in the Persian conquest—all to argue the folly of trusting Babylon.
But that still leaves unanswered the question of the title. The most likely possibility is that it is a play on the name of Merodach-Baladan’s (39:1) homeland in extreme southern Mesopotamia, “the Sealand.” Is the great Babylonian rebel in a position to offer Judah any help? Yes, just about as much as a desert might offer!3
Verses 1–2 depict the suddenness of destruction. Like a whirlwind in the “southland” of Judah, the destruction will sweep in. Babylon’s power, like Assyria’s before it, will be built on betrayal and plunder. But the day will come when the tables will be turned. Both “Elam” and “Media” were occasionally allies of Babylon, and both turn against her at various points. This is always the story when power and self-interest are the guiding principles of life, and Isaiah sees nothing but tragedy in store for those who build on them.
Probably the best explanation for the grief that racks Isaiah in 21:3–4 is that he is lamenting for those who put their trust in Babylon and will be destroyed when that trust fails (see 22:4). But he may also be experiencing vicariously the grief of those who are tortured and taken into exile. They hope for the end of the day of battle and struggle, but at the end of the day, as “twilight” falls, it is not a twilight of respite from battle but a twilight of defeat, leading into a night of “horror” (21:4). The Babylon whom they trust now to deliver them from Assyria will eventually become the oppressor who destroys them before it itself is conquered.
Verse 5 reminds the reader of the scene in Daniel 5, where Belshazzar is feasting in Babylon while the enemy is at the gates. The scene of feasting is quickly changed to one of frantic preparation for war (“oil the shields”), but the preparation is far too late.
While the overall sense of Isa. 21:6–9 is clear enough—that is, look for the message to come that “Babylon has fallen”—the specific significance of the repeated references to chariots and teams of horses is not. Perhaps they are suggestive of the fleeing, defeated remnants of an army who bring with them the first intimations of the defeat. Like Ezekiel later (Ezek. 3:17; 33:1–7), Isaiah is to be a watchman for his people to warn them of what lies ahead if they persist in disobeying God. The idols of Babylon cannot deliver their own land, so how can they deliver those outside of Babylon who trust in them?
Verse 10 continues that thought. The people of Judah are like grain “crushed on the threshing floor.” The oxen have been driven around and around on the heap of grain, pulling a heavy sled behind them. The stalks and husks have been crushed and the kernels of grain separated. Soon the whole mass will be tossed in the air with winnowing forks so that the chaff can be blown away. Clearly, that is what the Judean people feel like. They have been crushed under the sled of Assyria, so it looks as if Babylon offers a ray of hope. But Isaiah, the watchman, sees a false hope. Babylon is no more able to help than any other nation on earth.
The “Dumah” Oracle (21:11–12)
THIS TWO-VERSE ORACLE is a puzzle. The message seems to concern Edom (“Seir,” 21:11), but it is addressed to the Arabian oasis Dumah, which was about three hundred miles southeast of Jerusalem.4 This oasis was at the intersection of the east-west trade route from Babylon to Edom and Egypt, and the north-south route from the Red Sea to Palmyra. Undoubtedly, the fate of Babylon is of great concern to Dumah, and farther west to Edom. In view of the fact that the third oracle in this cycle clearly concerns the Arabians and the other great oasis of Tema, it seems best to retain the reference to Dumah.
But what of the message itself? Perhaps the thought is that even the Edomites turn to Isaiah, the Judean “watchman,” to see what is happening in the east. Because of his God he is able to see the future in ways the ordinary “seer” cannot. But if that is the case, the message given is a rather enigmatic one. In 21:4, the speaker admitted that the longed-for twilight had not produced relief. Now the prophet seems to be saying that the longed-for dawn may not be a relief either, for night will swiftly follow it. This may refer to the Assyrian “night” ending, but a Babylonian “night” following it in swift succession. It may also speak of the coming defeat of Sennacherib in 701 B.C. (“dawn”), but the subsequent destruction of Babylon in whom Judah is trusting in 689 B.C. (“night”).
An Oracle on Arabia (21:13–17)
OF THE SUCCESSION of four oracles in Isaiah 21–22, this third one is the only one that appears to have a straightforward title. It is addressed to the “Arabians” who lived in the desert between Babylon and Judah. The oasis of “Tema” was located about two hundred miles south of Dumah on the road to the Red Sea, and Dedan is about ninety miles south of Tema. Both are located in an area of northwest Arabia known as Kedar (21:16). Tema is significant because this is where the last king of Babylon made his headquarters for most of his reign. While he was there, his son Belshazzar was viceregent in Babylon.
It is not clear who the “fugitives” mentioned in 21:14 are. Perhaps they are Babylonians fleeing the destruction of their city. Or they may be fugitives from Dumah, fleeing southward away from the conflagration spreading outward from southern Mesopotamia. But 21:16–17 make it clear that Kedar itself will not escape the disaster. War will overtake them “within one year” of this pronouncement having been made, and their armies will be decimated. All this is certain because Israel’s God “has spoken.”
Bridging Contexts
ONE OF THE classic examples of the failure of a web of deceptive alliances in our time is the story of Russia and Germany. One of Hitler’s greatest fears growing out of World War I was of a “two-front” war. So, in order to secure his eastern flank while campaigning in the west, he concluded what must surely be one of the most cynical alliances of all time. Knowing that he would one day attack Russia (already having said so in his Mein Kampf), he still got Russia to agree to a nonaggression pact. For his part, Stalin was frightened of the rapidly growing German war machine and congratulated himself for having effectively stopped it at his borders.
Both of these pirates had built their empires on lies and looting, and now they were announcing their “mutual understanding and trust.” It is amazing that Stalin could not see what sort of person Hitler was after all the promises he had broken from Czechoslovakia onward, but perhaps the Russian tyrant thought he saw a kindred spirit in the man. It may also be true that Stalin was afraid of his remaining generals (after the purges of 1937–1938) amassing power within the country if he permitted a great buildup in the armed forces, and he thought he could avoid such a buildup with the pact.
In any case, once Hitler felt the west was secure, he turned to gobble up the great wheat fields of Byelo-Russia and the Ukraine, sure that a cowed Stalin would hide behind the Urals and sue for peace. But if Stalin misread Hitler, so did Hitler misread Stalin. Hitler did not know that he had kicked a bulldog. The former Orthodox priest had pursued his goals of absolute power for twenty years with incredible tenacity and stubbornness, and those traits would serve him well in “The Great Patriotic War.” Both men thought that they had put something over on their neighbor that would be to their own advantage. But in the end, both countries were devastated.
That is the picture here. Whoever trusts in deception and betrayal to build his kingdom must eventually watch that kingdom being torn down by the very traits that built it in the first place. Trusting Babylon was an exercise in self-deception.
Contemporary Significance
PROMISES AND SELF-INTEREST. These three oracles speak of the sovereignty of God, the folly of trusting in human power, and the fickleness of human promises. The believer today must constantly remind himself or herself of these truths. We must think about these things from our own point of view. Are people depending on us? Why? Have we, like Babylon, made promises to people that are chiefly for the purpose of getting them involved in “our agenda”? Are we only interested in using them for our own advantage? Have we made promises to them that we either cannot or do not intend to keep?
These are serious questions. One of the reasons they are so serious is because of the immense capacity for self-deception that human self-interest provokes. Needing to take care of ourselves, we easily justify questionable behaviors because of that “worthwhile” end. Parents can make promises to children, spouses can make commitments to spouses, church members can make promises to other church members—and all the time those promises are only devices to promote our own self-interest. I do not care about my child’s development; I only want peace from his constant nagging, or I want her to think well of me. I promise to love, honor, and cherish until death, when what I really want is a beautiful wedding, or the sense of having exclusive right to the other person, or the satisfaction of having beat out the competition. I promise to be faithful as a church member, but only so long as it does not interfere with other, more enjoyable activities. As a result, when keeping the promises requires me to deny myself in some way, as it always will, the promises, like Babylon’s, turn out to be useless. Since the very reason I made the promise was for self-interest, as soon as keeping the promise conflicts with self-interest, there is no contest.
At the same time, we need to be realistic about the promises of others to us. In many cases their commitments to us will be just as self-serving as ours were to them. If we look for any ultimate security in human commitments or human institutions, we need to be prepared for disappointment. This is not only true because of the self-interest problem but also because of human limitations. If there are mighty human weapons to be used on our behalf, there are even mightier ones to be used against us. Humanity simply cannot provide the kind of ultimate security we are looking for. The result is not only disappointment but often cynicism and embitterment.
What is the solution for both of these cases? How can we become truly trustworthy in our relations with others, and how can we avoid the embitterment of failed trust? We need to surrender our self-interest into the hands of the sovereign God. We need to stop trusting others to supply what only God can provide, and we need to stop trying to supply our own needs out of our own resources and turn instead to God in a genuine self-denying trust. If I have come to know that God is infinitely trustworthy and if I have abandoned my self-interest into his hands, I can become trustworthy myself. My promises are not to get but genuinely to give. And if others take advantage of my promises, as they frequently will, given the human condition, I can remain faithful knowing that I have resources to turn to that are not dependent on what others may do.
Here is the secret of “sweet” saints over the centuries of the Christian church. Have they never been disappointed by broken promises or failed trusts? Of course they have, and maybe more than the rest of us because they are so prodigal with their kindnesses. But they have put their weight down on God and not on humans. Thus, if the human branch beneath them breaks, they can still sing, knowing they have wings to fly.
All this depends on the sovereignty of God displayed in the final phrase of Isa. 21:17. If there is a sovereign God who can reveal himself and his will to human beings, then there is a divine resource we can turn to in the midst of trouble and uncertainty. Furthermore, if that God is loving, faithful, and good, we who abandon ourselves into his care need not fear any final loss, on either side of the grave. But everything depends on the validity of this revelation. If God is one degree less than what the Bible claims him to be, either in his power or his character, then we are without hope. But the testimony of the Bible and of the saints coincides. The One Holy Being in the universe is all-powerful and all-loving. We can trust him (see Matt. 6:26–30; Rom. 5:8).
This is the message Isaiah is trying to get his compatriots to hear: God is faithful and humans are not. Humans will fail you, so if you abandon your trust in God to trust in the nations of the earth, prepare for disappointment (Isa. 21:3–4; see also Ps. 56:1–4). But if you have put your trust in God, you can be faithful even to those who fail you because, like Christ, you will have “food” to eat that no one else knows of (John 4:32–34).