THIS prophecy consists of two parts. The first predicts the fall of Tyre, vs. 1-14. The second promises its restoration and conversion, vs. 15-18. The fall of Tyre is predicted, not directly, but in the form of apostrophes, addressed to her own people or her colonies, vs. 1-7. The destruction is referred to God as its author, and to the Chaldees as his instruments, vs. 8-14. The prediction in the latter part includes three events. Tyre shall be forsaken and forgotten for seventy years, v. 15. She shall then be restored to her former activity and wealth, vs. 16, 17. Thenceforth her gains shall be devoted to the Lord, v. J 8.
Tyre, one of the chief cities of Phenicia, was situated partly on a rocky island near the coast, and partly in a wide and fertile plain upon the coast itself. It was long a current opinion that the insular Tyre had no existence before the time of Nebuchadnezzar; but Hengstenberg has made it probable that from the beginning the chief part of the city was situated on the island, or rather a peninsula connected with the mainland by a narrow isthmus. (See his elaborate and masterly tract, De Rebus Tyriorum, Berlin, 1832.) The name Palaetyrus (Old Tyre), given by the ancient writers to the continental city, he supposes to have come into use after that part of Tyre was destroyed and while the other was still standing. Tyre is remarkable in history for two things; its maritime trade, and the many sieges it has under gone. The first of these on record was by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, who according to Menander, a historian now lost but quoted by Josephus, blockaded Tyre for five years, so as to cut off the supply cf water from the mainland, but without being able to reduce the city. The next was by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, who besieged it thirteen years; with what result, is not expressly mentioned either in profane or sacred history. A third siege was by Alexander the Great, who after seven months and with the utmost difficulty finally reduced it. It was afterwards besieged by the Syrian king Antigonus, and more than once during the Crusades, both by Franks and Saracens. After this period it entirely decayed, and has now disappeared, its site being marked by the insulated rock, by the cause way between it and the mainland still existing as a bar of sand, and by columns and other architectural remains mostly lying under water.
It has been much disputed which of these events is the subject of the prophecy before us. Grotius, as usual, sees the fulfilment in the days of Isaiah himself, and refers the prediction to the siege by Shalmaneser. Clericus gives it a wider scope, and seems to make the siege by Alexander its main subject. But the great body of the older writers refer it to an inter mediate event, the siege by Nebuchadnezzar. The arguments in favour of this application are stated with great learning, force, and clearness, by Vitringa on the passage.
The German writers of the new school are divided on this question. Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and others, admit the reference to Nebuchadnezzar, but ascribe the prophecy of course to a contemporary writer. Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, and Knobel, admit its genuineness, but refer it to the siege by Shalmaneser. Hendewerk also admits the genuineness of the passage, but denies its having reference to any particular historical event. Ewald refers it to the siege by Shalmaneser, but infers from the inferiority of the style that it may be the production of a younger contemporary and disciple of Isaiah. The discussion of the subject by these writers is in one respect interesting and instructive. In most other cases they occupy common ground against the truth. But here they are reduced to a dilemma, and by choosing different horns of it, are placed in opposition to each other, clearly betraying, in the conflict that ensues, the real value of their favourite style of criticism. Thus while Ewald thinks the style unlike that of Isaiah, and Eichhorn and Hitzig see the clearest indications of a later age, Gesenius and Hendewerk are struck with the tokens of antiquity and with the characteristics of Isaiah. So too with respect to the literary merit of the passage, Hitzig treats it almost with contempt, while Hendewerk extols it as a masterpiece of eloquence. There could not be a stronger illustration of the fact, already evident, that the boasted diagnosis of this school of critics is always dependent on a foregone conclusion. Had there been no siege of Tyre in the days of Isaiah, Gesenius would easily have found abundant proofs that the chapter was of later date. But this not being necessary for his purpose here, he treats as inconclusive even stronger proofs than those which he himself employs in other cases.
To the reference of this prophecy to Shalmaneser there are two main objections. The first is the express mention of the Chaldees in v. 18. Ewald easily disposes of this difficulty by reading ft^assD instead of d^this. Gesenius and the rest maintain that the Chaldees are mentioned only as tributaries or auxiliaries of Assyria. As this, though arbitrarily assumed, is not impossible, the first objection cannot be regarded as decisive. The second is that Shalmaneser’s attempt upon Tyre was perfectly abortive. This argument of course has no effect upon Gesenius and others who deny the inspiration of the Prophet. Even such however must admit that if the descriptions of the prophecy were actually realized in another case, it is more likely to have been the one intended. They allege however that the very same objection lies against the supposition of a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that no historian, sacred or profane, records the fact of his having taken Tyre. To account for this omission, and to show by various incidental proofs that the event did nevertheless happen, is the main design of Hengstenberg’s tract already mentioned, in which he has performed his task with a rare combination of minute learning, ingenuity, and good sense, although not to the satisfaction of contemporary German writers. His argument from the nature of the case turns in a great measure on minute details, and sometimes on intricate calculations in chronology. It will be sufficient therefore to record the result, which is that the actual con quest of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, even leaving out of view the prophecy before us, and the more explicit one in Ezek. ch. 26, is much more probable than the contrary hypothesis. But there is still another difficulty in the way of applying the prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar’s siege and conquest. Isaiah intimates and Ezekiel explicitly foretells an entire desolation of Tyre, which did not take place till the middle ages. Hengstenberg’s solution of this difficulty is, that the prophets constantly connect the immediate consequences of the events which they predict with their remoter and more gradual results. On the same general principle of interpretation, but with a difference of form, it may be said that the prophecy before us is generic not specific, a panoramic picture of the downfall of Tyre, from the beginning to the end of the destroying process, with particular allusion to particular sieges, as for instance to that of the Chaldees in v. 13, and perhaps to that of Alexander in v. 6. Antiquarian research and discovery may yet bring to light coincidences still more striking.
While the great majority of writers understand the passage as referring to the literal Tyre, a few prefer to take it in a mystical sense. Some of the older Jewish writers say that whenever the literal Tyre is meant, the name is fully written (^s), but that when it is defectively written, as it is here, (-1:2) it signifies Rome. Abarbenel refutes this dictum by showing that both forms occur in the same context, but himself makes Tyre here mean Ven ice. But these hypotheses are modest in comparison with that of Cocceius, who understands by Tyre the Church of Rome, by Egypt Germany, by Chittim Spain, by Tarshish France, by Assyria Turkey, by the land of the Chaldees Hungary, and by the whole passage a chapter from the history of the Reformation. Of such interpretations it may surely be said without undue severity: ’ hariolationes hae sunt; sequamur certa; incerta aequo animo ignoremus; neque etiam banc prophetiam cum quibusdam veterum allegorice interpretabimur nam si Scriptura non indicet debere nos in re una cernere imaginem alterius, etiamsi res diversae a Scriptura explicatae similitudinem et conformitatem aliquam habeant, non possumus tamen asserere hoc illius typum et figuram esse, nisi quatenus ilia conformitas ex Scripturarum comparatione demonstratur.’ These are the words of Cocceius himself, reproving Grotius for his groundless hypothesis of Shebna’s leprosy in ch. 22. and declaring his own dissent from the old interpretations of that chapter.
1. The burden of Tyre. Howl, ships of Tarshish, for it is laid waste—?io house, no entrance—from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them. Here, as in ch. 13: 1. 15: 1. 17: 1. 19: 1. 21: 1, 11, 13. 22: 1, there is not the slightest reason for rejecting the first words as the addition of a copyist or compiler. The command or exhortation to howl implies that those to whom it is addressed have peculiar cause for grief. By ships of Tarshish we are not to understand merchant-ships in general, but strictly those which carried on the trade between Phenicia and its Spanish colony Tartessus. For the other meanings which have been attached to tti^aHn, vide supra, ch. 2: 15. Rosenmiiller condemns the generic explanation of 406 the phrase as unpoetical, but does not scruple to make ships mean sailors, which is wholly unnecessary. The masculine form Tnttj may either be referred to Ts by a common license, or indefinitely taken to mean desolation has been wrought, or something has been desolated, without saying what. Ewald resolves it into an indefinite active verb (zerstort hat man) without a change of meaning. The preposition in n^ and «tea has a privative effect. The meaning strictly is, away from house, away from entrance. It may be less concisely rendered, so that there is no house etc. Some make the two expressions strictly parallel and correlative, so that there is neither house nor entrance, in which case the latter may have reference to the enter ing of ships into the harbour. Others make the second dependent on the first, 50 that there is no house left to enter. This may refer particularly to the mariners returning from their long voyage and finding their homes de stroyed. Chittim is neither Macedonia (Clericus), Italy (Vitringa), Susiana (Bochart), Cilicia (Junius), nor a region in Arabia (Hensler), but the island of Cyprus (Josephus), in which there was a city Citium, which Cicero explicitly refers to as a Phenician settlement. The wider explanation of the name as denoting other islands or the Mediterranean coasts in general, though not without authority from usage, is uncertain and in this case need less. These words are connected with what goes before by Calvin (ut nori sit commeatus e terra Cittim) and others: but most interpreters adhere to the masoreiic interpunction. It is revealed (i. e. the event announced in the preceding clause) to them (the Tyrian mariners on their way home from Tarshish). The meaning seems to be, that the news of the fall of Tyre has reached the Phenician settlements in Cyprus, and through them the Tyrian mariners that touch there.
2. Be silent oh inhabitants of the isle (or coast), the merchants of Sidon crossing the sea filled thee. This may either be addressed to the coasts and islands of the Mediterranean which had long been frequented by the Phenician traders, or to Phenicia itself, which foreign commerce had enriched. The last explanation is commonly preferred; but the first is recommended by the fact that it assigns a reason for the mention of the foreign trade of Sidon, as accounting for the interest which other nations are supposed to feel in the fall of Tyre. On either supposition, Sidon, the other great city of Phenicia, is put for the whole country. The plural verb in the last clause agrees with nnb as a collective.
3. And in great waters (was) the seed of the Nile; the harvest of the river (was) her revenue; and she was a mart of nations. ihtti and -liK? are the Hebrew and Egyptian names of the Nile. The first, according to its etymology, means black, and corresponds to M&as and Melo, Greek and Latin names of the same river, all derived from the colour of the water or the mud which it deposits. The use of the word inttS is one of the proofs, adduced by Eichhorn and Rosenmiiller, that the chapter is of later date. It is true the name occurs in Josh. 13: 13; but that is also classed among the later books. Gesenius observes however that an inference can hardly be drawn from one or two examples. Of the whole verse there are three interpretations. The first supposes an allusion to the fact that the grain of Egypt was exported in Phenician vessels on the great waters i. e. over the sea. The objection that Phenicia is described by Ezekiel as trading not with Egypt but with Palestine in grain, though entitled to some weight, is not conclusive. A stronger objection may be drawn front the apparent incongruity of naming this one branch of commerce as a proof that Tyre was a mart of nations. A second interpretation understands what is said of Egypt figuratively, or as a comparison; as if he had said that the wealth which Egypt derived from the Nile, Phenicia derived from the great waters i. e. by her maritime trade. The third differs from this only by supposing a distinct allusion to the insular situation of Tyre, which, though planted on a rock and girt by mighty waters, reaped as rich a harvest as the fertile land of Egypt. This last interpretation, which is that of JL D. Michaelis and Hengstenberg, is much more poetical than either of the others, and at least in that respect entitled to the preference.
4. Be ashamed (or confounded) Zidon, for the sea saith, the strength of the sea, saying, I have not travailed, and I have not borne, and I have not reared young men (or) brought up virgins. One of the great cities of Phenicia is here called upon to be confounded at the desolation of the other; or Zidon may be put for the whole country, as in the preceding verse. The Targum gives to E”> its geographical sense of west (fcO-iS’a). Some writers understand the sea itself as the ideal speaker, and explain tiso as an allusion to the turret-like appearance of the waves when in commotion. The correct view of the case seems to be this. The Prophet hears a voice from the sea, which he then describes more exactly as coming from the stronghold or fortress of the sea, i. e. insular Tyre as viewed from the mainland. The rest of the verse is intended to express the idea that the city thus personified was childless, was as if she had never borne children. Here, as in chap. i: 2, Hendewerk takes •’Wciari in tile sense of exalting, making great, which is at once a violation of usage and of the Prophet’s metaphor. Interpreters are commonly agreed that the negative force of the last xb extends to both the following verbs. Cocceius alone seems to make the last clause affirmative (non educavi juvenes; extuli virgines) as if she were complaining that she had not borne sons but daughters. But the whole metaphor is clearly intended to express the idea of depopulation.
5. When the report (comes) to Egypt, they are pained at the report of Tyre. There are three distinct interpretations of this verse. The first refers iVrn to the Sidonians or Phenicians generally, and understands the verse to mean that they would be as much grieved to hear of the fall of Tyre as if they should hear of that of Egypt. The second makes the verb indefinite, or understands it of the nations generally, who are then said to be as much astounded at the fall of Tyre as they once were at the judgments of Jehovah upon Egypt. The third, which is the one now commonly adopt ed, makes Egypt itself or the Egyptians the subject of the verb, and explains 3 and “IIUXD as particles of time, not of comparison. The first of these senses is expressed by Vitringa (utfama de Egypto commoveret animos, sic dolebunt ad famam Tyri), the second by Luther (gleichwie man erschrak da man von Egypten h’drete, also wird man erschrecken wenn man von Tyrus h’oren wird), the third by the Vulgate (cum auditum fuerit in Egypto dolebunt cum audient de Tyro). This last supposes the Egyptians to lament for the loss of their great mart and commercial ally. The idea expressed by the second construction is a much more elevated one, and it seems more agreeable to usage to take a before a noun as a particle of comparison, (Vide supra, ch. 18: 4.) niesa equally admits- of either explanation. Either of these interpretations appears preferable to the first, which yields an unnatural and inappropriate sense.
6. Pass over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the isle (or coast), The mother country is exhorted to take refuge in her distant colonies, J. D. Michaelis compares the resolution of the Dutch merchants in 1672 to remove to Batavia if the mother country could not be delivered. According to Diodorus, Curtius,and Justin, the Tyrians, when besieged by Alexander^ sent their old men, women and children, to Carthage. Aben Ezra gratuitously makes ^ a collective, and supposes the address to be to all the islands where the Tyrians traded.
7. Is this your joyous city (literally, is this to you a joyous one)? from the days of old is her antiquity; her feet shall carry her afar off to sojourn. Some adopt a relative construction, and continue the interrogation through the verse; whose feet etc. Of those who read the sentence thus, some understand the last clause as descriptive of the colonial and commercial activity of Tyre. But this requires ^Tni^ to be arbitrarily explained as a preterite. Most writers understand the clause as applying, either to the flight of the Tyrians to their colonies, or to their being carried into exile. To the first, Gesenius objects that they could not cross the sea on foot, Umbreit replies that they must have feet to go on board the ships. Knobel rejoins that in that case it would not be their feet that carried them far off. It does not seem to have occurred to either, that a city can no more cross the sea in ships than dry-shod; that the verse contains a bold personification; and that having once converted Tyre into a woman, the writer may naturally represent her as going any where on foot, without respect to the actual method of conveyance used by individual emigrants. Grotius avoids the difficulty mentioned by Gesenius, by making feet mean sails and oars. The epithet npk? has reference to the bustle of commerical enterprise and also to the luxury and pride of Tyre. Hendewerk refers to the use of this word in ch. 22: 2; as an incidental proof that Isaiah wrote both chapters. The resemblance between fiE”?!? and fi^ is imitated by Gesenius in his version (Ursprung and Urzeit). These expressions may be referred either to the real antiquity of Tyre, or to the exaggerated boastings of the Tyrians, of which we have examples in Herodotus and other profane writers.
8. Who hath purposed this against Tyre the crowning (city), whose merchants (are) princes, her traffickers the honoured of the earth? The Vulgate gives m^BSa a passive sense (quondam coronatam), which Sanctius applies to the pinnacles and turrets of the city. Hitzig makes it mean the crown-wearer. Most writers seem to be agreed that it denotes the crowner or crown-giver, in allusion to the fact that crowned heads were among the tributaries of Phenicia, according to the testimony of the Greek historians. Gesenius refers to the oriental crowns dispensed by the East India Company, and to the crown of Corsica once subject to the Genoese Republic. He also illustrates the use of the name Canaan to denote a trader, by the analogous usage of Chaldean for astrologer, and that of Swiss, Savoyard, Jew, in modern parlance, to denote certain callings or professions. The question in this verse implies that no ordinary power could have done it. The sense of rich which Gesenius gives to n”n35 in this place is entirely arbitrary. That of land, which some writers put instead of earth, though it does not change the sense of the expression, weakens it.
9. Jehovah of Hosts hath purposed it, to profane the elevation of all beauty, to degrade all the honoured of the earth. This is the answer to the question in v. 8. The suffix in nxan refers to nxt. The supposition of a chorus, or of choruses responding to each other, is gratuitous and artificial, and better suited to a Greek play than a Hebrew prophecy. Not only in poetry, but in animated prose, the writers of all languages ask questions to be answered by themselves. *m includes all that was splendid and beautiful in Tyre. The exclusive reference of the word to the people can be justified by nothing but the parallelism, and even that will admit of an antithesis be tween an abstract and a concrete term, ^n means strictly to profane or dese crate that which is reckoned holy, but is here used to express the making common of that which was distinguished by magnificence or beauty. The force of the antithesis between bpn and Q^aaa cannot be fully expressed in a translation, as the roots respectively mean light and heavy. They are also contrasted, but in a different application and connexion, in ch. 8: 23.
10. Pass through thy land like the river (Nile); Daughter of Tarshish, there is no girdle (any) longer. Some read, pass over to thy land, and make the verse an exhortation to the strangers from Tartessus to go home. Others understand i&<h=> to mean as (one would cross) the Nile or any other stream, i. e. naked, or without a girdle, as in the other clause. It is commonly agreed, however, that the phrase means, as the Nile passes, i. e. quickly or without restraint. Some suppose the figure to be still continued in the last clause, and take nt£ in the sense of a dam, mound, or em bankment. Others, giving it its proper sense of girdle, apply it to the fortifications of Tyre which were now dismantled. The daughter of Tarshish is not Tyre, or Phenicia now considered as dependent on her colonies; nor the population of Tarshish; but Tarshish itself. There is no more girdle may be taken in opposite senses, as denoting the failure of strength and gen eral dissolution, or the absence of restraint and freedom from oppression. The former is preferred by Hengstenberg; but it does not seem appropriate to Tarshish, though it might be so if addressed to the mother country.
11. His hand he stretched out over the sea; he made kingdoms tremble; Jehovah commanded respecting Canaan to destroy her strongholds. The subject of the verbs in the first clause is the same as in the last. The stretching out of God’s hand, followed by the trembling of the earth or its inhabitants, is urged by Hendewerk as a favourite expression of Isaiah (see particularly ch. 5: 25). Eichhorn and Rosenmiiller, on the other hand, make fiistsa a Chaldaism and a proof of later origin. Gesenius denies that there is any thing analogous in Chaldee or Syriac usage, and regards it as either an anomalous case of epenthesis or an orthographical error. The feminine suffix at the end refers to Canaan as the name of a country.
12. And he said, Thou shalt not add longer (or continue) to tri umph, oppressed (or violated) virgin daughter of Zidon; to Chittim arise, pass over; there also there shall be no rest to thee. The address is not to Chittim (or the Macedonians); nor to Tyre as a daughter of the older city; but to Zidon itself. The fact that nbina is in apposition with ra (as to sense) makes it altogether probable that ns sustains the same relation to li^st. The reading “jVS fd, though found in sixteen manuscripts and several ancient versions, is probably a mere mistake, arising from the frequent occurrence of the combination elsewhere. Zidon is here put for Phenicia in general.
is impersonal. This exhortation corresponds exactly to the one in v. 6, Tarshish and Chittim being both Phenician colonies. The last clause implies, either that the colonists would not receive them, or that the enemy would still pursue them, probably the latter. The figure of a violated virgin, for a conquered city or country, is alleged by Eichhorn as a proof of later origin; but it is used by the contemporary prophet Nahum (3: 5), and as Knobel observes, occurs nowhere else in Isaiah because he nowhere has occasion to employ it.
13. Behold the land of the Chaldees; this people was not; Assyria founded it for dwellers in the wilderness; they have set up his towers; they have roused up her palaces; he has put it for (or rendered it) a ruin. This difficult verse has been very variously understood. Some apply it exclusively to the destruction of Tyre by the Assyrians; but this can only be effected by an arbitrary change of text. Thus J. Olshausen (in his emendations of the text of the Old Testament) omits the words from y*ix to THEN as a gloss, changes D^X into D^s, and explains the rest to mean that Assyria converted Tyre into a heap of ruins. The origin of the gloss he supposes to be this, that some one wrote upon the margin by way of cor rection, D^ttJa y-ix, meaning that it was not Assyria but Babylonia that de stroyed Tyre, and then added more explicitly, mn xb csn HT, all which after wards found its way into the text. This piece of criticism is too extravagant even for the Germans, who accordingly reject it with contempt. Ewald, however, also tampers with the text by reading d^asaa for d^iiBS. His version of the whole is: ‘ behold the land of the Canaanites (i. e. Phenicia); this nation is no more; Assyria has converted it into a wilderness; they (the Phenicians) set up their towers (and) built their palaces; he (the Assyrian) has turned it to a ruin.’ Besides the arbitrary change of text, this explanation gives to d^x and 1*1-112? senses which cannot be sustained by usage. The great majority, both of the older and the later writers, leave the text unaltered, and suppose that the Prophet here brings the Chaldees into view as the instruments of Tyre’s destruction. The words from SIT to diixb will then be a parenthesis, containing an allusion to a historical fact not expressly mentioned elsewhere, but agreeing well with other facts of history, viz. that the Chaldees were not the aboriginal inhabitants of Babylonia, but were brought thither from the mountains of Armenia or Kurdistan by the Assyrians in the days of their supremacy. This accounts for the fact, that Xenophon speaks of the Chaldees as northern mountaineers, while in the sacred history we find them in possession of the great plain of Shinar. The former statement has respect, no doubt, to that portion of the people who were left behind in their original territory. This incidental statement, it may also be observed, is in strict accordance with the Assyrian policy of peopling their own provinces with conquered nations. The construction commonly adopted, by interpreters who thus explain the sentence, is as follows. ‘ Behold the land of the Chaldees; this people (the people now inhabiting it) was not (i. e. had no existence until lately); Assyria founded (or established) it (the country) for dwellers in the wilderness (i. e. for the Chaldees who before had led a wild nomadic life).’ To this construction Knobel, though he acquiesces in the exposition as a whole, makes two objections; first, that while it ex plains “ps as denoting the people, it refers the suffix in m&n to the country; secondly, that o^a is really descriptive of the Chaldees, not before but after their transportation to the plains of Babylonia. Knobel himself refers both -pat and the suffix to the people considered as possessors of the land, and takes ^ ID11 in the sense of appointing, constituting, as in Hab. 1:12. ‘ Behold the nation of the Chaldees; this people was not (i. e. was unknown) till Assyria changed them into inhabitants of the wilderness (or plain).’—But why should this fact in the history of the Chaldees be referred to here? The answer usually given to this question is. because the recent origin and present insignificance of the chosen instruments made the conquest more humiliating to the Tyrians. A kindred feeling would have been excited in the ancient Romans by a prediction of their subjugation and destruction by the Goths. If the reason assigned for the incidental mention of the Chaldee migration be the true one, it has evidently far more force upon the supposition that the prophecy relates to the Babylonian conquest under Nebuchadnezzar, than upon the supposition that it relates to the attack of Shalmaneser. Indeed the whole assumption, that the Chaldees are here mentioned as auxiliaries only, is so perfectly arbitrary, that it would never have occurred to any writer, who had not determined upon other grounds, that the event predicted took place under the Assyrian domination. Even Umbreit, who assents to this hypothesis, admits that it is only probable, not certain, and that this verse taken by itself would rather prove the contrary, by mentioning the Chaldees as the principal assailants, and Assyria only in a parenthesis containing a historical allusion. According to the usual interpretation which has now been given, the towers mentioned are those used in ancient sieges; the masculine suffix refers to C3>; the feminine suffix to Tyre; and Tnir may be taken either in the sense of raising (from TIS), or in that of rousing (from isis), that is, filling with confusion and alarm. Besides the interpretations which have now been given, there is another that deserves at least to be re corded. Schleyer, a recent German writer on this prophecy and that against Babylon in ch. xm, xiv, gives the same sense to the words from frr to ^ittsx that is put upon them by Olshausen, but instead of rejecting them as a marginal correction, retains them as a necessary part of the text. ’ Behold, the nation of the Chaldees; this people (it was not Assyria) has assigned it (i. e. Tyre) to the dwellers in the wilderness (i. e. made it desolate). Umbreit, without dwelling on the violation of the masoretic accents, objects to this interpretation, that it fails to account for the use of the word -px before ta^nja, but especially that no reason can be given for the negative assertion that it was not Assyria that desolated Tyre. If the interpretation, however, were otherwise tenable, this, so far from being an objection, would in fact recommend it. When Isaiah wrote, Assyria was the ruling power of the world; whatever changes were expected, were expected from that quarter. But here the conquest of Phenicia is ascribed to a people then but little known, if known at all. It was perfectly natural therefore to say negatively, that it was no to be effected by Assyria, as well as positively, that it was to be effected by Chaldea. In like manner, if the fall of the Roman state had been foretold during the period of the Punic wars, how naturally would the prophet have said that it should fall, not before the Carthaginians, but before the Goths. The sense therefore yielded by Schleyer’s construction is a good sense in itself and appropriate to the context. It cannot however be affirmed that there is any sufficient reason for departing from the masoretic tradition as to the interpunction of the sentence. But let it be observed, that on either of these suppositions, the reference of the verse to the siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar is far more natural than any other.
14. Howl, ships of Tarshish, for destroyed is your stronghold. The first part of the prophecy here closes very much as it began. The description of Tyre is the same as in v. 4, except that it was there called the fortress of the sea, and here the fortress of the Tyrian ships.
15. And it shall come to pass in that day that Tyre shall be forgot ten seventy years, as the days of one king; from the end of seventy years shall be (or happen) to Tyre like the harlot’s song. The remainder of the chapter predicts the restoration of Tyre, not to its former dignity, but to its wealth and commercial activity, the fruits of which should thenceforth be consecrated to Jehovah. There is no difference of opinion with respect to the meaning of the words or the grammatical construction of the sentence; but the utmost diversity of judgment in relation to the general sense and ap plication of the whole, and especially of the words, seventy years as the days of one Jcing. Vitringa and others take the seventy years strictly. Gesenius and the later German writers make it a round number, as in Gen. 50: 3. Ex. 15: 27. 24: 1. The following words are rejected by Umbreit as a gloss. J. D. Michaelis and Paulus read ^ntf (another) for inx (one). Grotius reads seven for seventy, forgetting that the following noun must then be in the plural, and assuming that Shalmaneser reigned seven years, or was seven years at Tyre. Jarchi understands by the one Jcing David, who died at the age of threescore and ten, though he cannot explain why it should be here referred to. Kimchi suggests that it may be in allusion to the treaty between David and Hiram, the breach of which was the occasion of this judgment. Kimchi prefers however to explain the words as a description of the ordinary length of human life, in which he is followed by Gesenius and Maurer, who account for the mention of one king rather than one man, upon the ground that kings and kingdoms are the subject of the prophecy. The same interpretation is suggested by the double version of the Septuagint (cog %QOVO$ fiaaittmg, (b$ %Qovog av&Qconov), which is found in all the manuscripts, though some modern critics reckon only part of it as genuine, Gesenius considering the first phrase as an emendation of the second, Rosenmuller the second as a later explanation of the first. Hitzig pretends that this form of expression was borrowed from Jeremiah’s expectation that Zedekiah was to be restored at the end of seventy years. Movers supposes that the things compared are not two periods of time, but two cases of oblivion, and understands the clause as meaning that Tyre should be forgotten as completely as Jehoahaz and his three months’ reign. Henderson, more generally, makes the sense to be that Tyre should be forgotten as completely as a king when he is dead, in illustration of which general fact he strangely cites the case of Napoleon. Knobel understands the verse to mean that the oblivion of Tyre for a time should be as fixed and unalterable as the decrees of an oriental monarch during his own reign. Eichhorn and Ewald understand the phrase as opposite in meaning to the one employed in ch. 16: 14. 21: 16. As the years of a hireling mean years computed strictly, so the days of a king may mean days computed freely. Hengstenberg, without attempting to explain the phrase (quomodocunque ilia explicentur), understands it to imply that seventy years is here to be indefinitely understood, and carefully distinguished from the seventy years of Jeremiah and from the other specifications of time contained in the writings of Isaiah himself. Those, on the other hand, who give the words their strict sense, for the most part follow Aben Ezra and Vitringa in supposing that the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors are here computed as one. It is no sufficient answer to say that ^n never means a dynasty. That idea may of course be implied even if it is not expressed. The chronological hypothesis of this interpretation has however been denied by J. D. Michaelis, who puts the end of the prescribed term thirty-three or four years later than the fall of Babylon. That Tyre was a flourishing city in the time of Alexander the Great, is matter of history. When it again became so, is not. But since the fact is certain and the prophecy explicit, the most rational conclusion is that they chronologically coincide, or in other words, that Tyre did begin to recover from the effects of the Babylonian conquest about seventy years after the catastrophe itself. This of course supposes that the words are to be definitely understood. If, on the other hand, they are indefinite, there can be still less difficulty in supposing their fulfilment. In either case, the words ins ^» 1013 remain so enigmatical, and all the explanations of them so unsatisfactory, that some may be tempted to refer them to the future, and to look for their development hereafter. Hengstenberg’s view of the connexion between this prediction of Isaiah and the parallel prophecies of Ezekiel (ch. 26 and 27) and Zechariah (ch. 9) is this, that the last should be regarded as a supplement or sequel to the other two. When Zechariah wrote, the Babylonian conquest predicted by Isaiah and Ezekiel had already taken place. The change for the better, predicted by Isaiah alone, was then already visible. The prophecies of both respecting the total destruction of the city are renewed by Zechariah and referred to a period still future, with particular reference, as Hengstenberg supposes, to the time of Alexander, but it may be with a scope still more extensive.—The last clause foretells the restoration of Tyre in a very peculiar and significant form. Instead of a queen reinstated on the throne, she now appears as a forgotten harlot, suing once more for admiration and reward. Although this metaphor, as we shall see below, does not necessarily imply moral turpitude, it does necessarily impart a contemptuous tone to the prediction. The best explanation of this change of tone is not, as Eichhorn imagined, that these verses are a later addition, but that the restoration here predicted was to be a restoration to commercial prosperity and wealth, but not to regal dignity or national importance. The song of a harlot (or the harlot) is now commonly agreed to mean a particular song well known to the contemporaries of the Prophet. It shall be to her like this song can only mean that what the song presents as an ideal situation should be realized in the experience of Tyre. The Hebrew words will scarcely bear the meaning put upon them in the text of the English Version.
16. Take a harp, go about the city, oh forgotten harlot, play well, sing much, that thou mayest be remembered. These are now commonly ex plained as the words of the song itself, describing the only way in which the harlot could recover her lost place in the memory of men, viz. by soliciting their notice and their favour. The application of the song to Tyre implies not only that she had lost her former position in the sight of the nations, but that exertion would be needed to recover it. The literal meaning of the words translated play well, sing much, is make good playing, multiply song. See Gesenius § 139, 1.
17. And it shall be (or come to pass), from (or at) the end of seventy years, Jehovah will visit Tyre, and she shall return to her hire (or gain), and shall play the harlot with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the face of the ground. As God is said to visit men both in wrath and mercy, and as the figure here employed is at first sight a revolting one, some of the older writers understand this verse as describing the continued wickedness of Tyre requiring further judgments. But this makes it necessary to explain the next verse as referring to a still remoter future, which is done by insert ing tandem or the like at the beginning. It is evident, however, from the repetition of the word nssrx in the next verse, that the prediction there has reference to the very course of conduct here described. From this again the inference is plain, that notwithstanding the apparent import of the figure, the conduct is not in itself unlawful. The figure indeed is now commonly agreed to denote nothing more than commercial intercourse without necessarily implying guilt. In ancient times, when international commerce was a strange thing and nearly monopolized by a single nation, and especially among the Jews, whose law discouraged it for wise but temporary purposes, there were probably ideas attached to such promiscuous intercourse entirely different from our own. Certain it is that the Scriptures more than once compare the mutual solicitations of commercial enterprise to illicit love. That the comparison does not necessarily involve the idea of unlawful or dishonest trade, is sufficiently apparent from the following verse.
18. And her gain and her hire shall be holiness (or holy i. e. consecrated) to Jehovah; it shall not be stored and it shall not be hoarded; for her gain shall be for those who sit (or dwell) before Johovah} to eat to satiety, and for substantial clothing. By those who dwell before Jehovah we are probably to understand his worshippers in general and his official servants in particular. Henderson’s objection, that the priests were not allowed to sit in the temple, is applicable only to the primary meaning of the verb. There may be an allusion to the chambers around the temple which were occupied by priests and Levites when in actual service, PTIS, accord ing to the Arabic analogy, means ancient as an epithet of praise, and is accordingly resolved by the modern writers into^/me or splendid. The older interpreters deduced perhaps from the same original idea that of durable, substantial, wearing long and well. The latter agrees better with the application of the words to private dress, the former to official robes, in which magnificence was more important than solidity, and which might be transferred from one incumbent to the next, and so be represented even in the stricter sense as old or ancient. The general sense of the prediction evidently is, that the commercial gains of Tyre should redound to the advantage of the servants of Jehovah.
