Were the Persians Wrongly Omitted from Isaiah and Jeremiah?
Keyword Search
Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

On the side of the Daniel issues, was this objection:

In my replies to Bradford and Hatcher, I have pointed out that both Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would be overthrown by the Medes, who at the time these prophetic books were written seemed to be the most likely adversary capable of conquering a nation as powerful as Babylonia. Isaiah's "burden" against Babylon began at chapter 13, where he launched into a typical prophetic tirade against the Babylonian threat to Israel. "The day of Yahweh is at hand," he proclaimed. "It will come as destruction from the Almighty" (v:6). Beginning at verse 17, he identified the Medes as the instrument that Yahweh would use to bring about Babylon's destruction.


Jeremiah was just as specific in his prophecy against Babylon. A total and complete destruction of Babylon was predicted in 50:8-46, a passage too long to quote, and in chapter 51, he repeated the prophecy even more graphically and identified the Medes as the instrument of Yahweh's wrath against Babylon.

And so:

The fact that the conquest and destruction of Babylon weren't done by the Medes (who had been conquered themselves before the downfall of Babylon) is of little consequence to biblical inerrantists. They will quibble that the Medes were only symbolic of the nation that God would use to overthrow Babylon, and so the prophecy was still fulfilled by a nation that God had "stirred up" against this powerful enemy of Israel.

Not at all. The answer: The Medes were at the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah subject to the Persians; therefore "Medes" at this time was inclusive of both parties. That is how the term was used as well in the works of classical historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch). This shifted by Daniel's time when the Medes were the junior partner.