The Oracle Against Tyre, the Humbling of Commercial Glory, and Wealth Set Apart for the Lord

Isa 23:6-9 The inhabitants of Tyre, who desired to escape from death or transportation, are obliged to take refuge in the colonies, and the farther off the better: not in Cyprus, not in Carthage (as at the time when Alexander attacked the insular Tyre), but in Tartessus itself, the farthest off towards the west, and the hardest to reach. “Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the coast!

Is this your fate, thou full of rejoicing, whose origin is from the days of the olden time, whom her feet carried far away to settle? Who hath determined such a thing concerning Tzor, the distributor of crowns, whose merchants are princes, whose traders are the chief men of the earth? Jehovah of hosts hath determined it, to desecrate the pomp of every kind of ornament, to dishonour the chief men of the earth, all of them.

” The exclamation “howl ye” ( hēillu ) implies their right to give themselves up to their pain. In other cases complaint is unmanly, but here it is justifiable (compare Isa 15:4). In Isa 23:7 the question arises, whether ‛allizâh is a nominative predicate, as is generally assumed ( “Is this, this deserted heap of ruins, your formerly rejoicing city? ” ), or a vocative.

We prefer the latter, because there is nothing astonishing in the omission of the article in this case (Isa 22:2; Ewald, 327, a ); whereas in the former case, although it is certainly admissible (see Isa 32:13), it is very harsh (compare Isa 14:16), and the whole expression a very doubtful one to convey the sense of לכם אשר עליזה קריה הזאת. To ‛allizâh there is attached the descriptive, attributive clause: whose origin ( kadmâh , Eze 16:55) dates from the days of the olden time; and then a second “whose feet brought her far away ( raglaim construed as a masculine, as in Jer 13:16, for example) to dwell in a foreign land.

This is generally understood as signifying transportation by force into an enemy’s country. But Luzzatto very properly objects to this, partly on the ground that רגליה יבלוּה (her feet carried her) is the strongest expression that can be used for voluntary emigration, to which lâgūr (to settle) also corresponds; and partly because we miss the antithetical ועתּה, which we should expect with this interpretation.

The reference is to the trading journeys which extended “far away” (whether by land or sea), and to the colonies, i. e. , the settlements founded in those distant places, that leading characteristic of the Tyro-Phoenician people (this is expressed in the imperfect by yobiluâh , quam portabant ; gur is the most appropriate word to apply to such settlements: for mērâchōk , see at Isa 17:13).

Sidon was no doubt older than Tyre, but Tyre was also of primeval antiquity. Strabo speaks of its as the oldest Phoenician city “after Sidon;” Curtius calls it vetustate originis insignis ; and Josephus reckons the time from the founding of Tyre to the building of Solomon’s temple as 240 years ( Ant. viii. 3, 1; compare Herod. ii. 44). Tyre is called hammaēatirâh , not as wearing a crown (Vulg.

quondam coronata ), but as a distributor of crowns (Targum). Either would be suitable as a matter of fact; but the latter answers better to the hiphil (as hikrı̄n , hiphrı̄s , which are expressive of results produced from within outwards, can hardly be brought into comparison). Such colonies as Citium, Tartessus, and at first Carthage, were governed by kings appointed by the mother city, and dependent upon her.

Her merchants were princes (compare Isa 10:8), the most honoured of the earth; נכבּדּי acquires a superlative meaning from the genitive connection (Ges. §119, 2). From the fact that the Phoenicians had the commerce of the world in their hands, a merchant was called cena‛ani or cena‛an (Hos 12:8; from the latter, not from cin‛âni , the plural cin‛ânim which we find here is formed), and the merchandise cin‛âh .

The verb chillēl , to desecrate or profane, in connection with the “pomp of every kind of ornament,” leads us to think more especially of the holy places of both insular and continental Tyre, among which the temple of Melkarth in the new city of the former was the most prominent (according to the Arrian, Anab . ii. 16, παλαιότατον ὧν μνήμη ἀνθρωπίνη διασώζεται).

These glories, which were thought so inviolable, Jehovah will profane. “ To dishonour the chief men: ” lehâkēl ( ad ignominiam deducere , Vulg.) as in Isa 8:22.

Isa 23:6-9 The inhabitants of Tyre, who desired to escape from death or transportation, are obliged to take refuge in the colonies, and the farther off the better: not in Cyprus, not in Carthage (as at the time when Alexander attacked the insular Tyre), but in Tartessus itself, the farthest off towards the west, and the hardest to reach. “Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the coast!

Is this your fate, thou full of rejoicing, whose origin is from the days of the olden time, whom her feet carried far away to settle? Who hath determined such a thing concerning Tzor, the distributor of crowns, whose merchants are princes, whose traders are the chief men of the earth? Jehovah of hosts hath determined it, to desecrate the pomp of every kind of ornament, to dishonour the chief men of the earth, all of them.

” The exclamation “howl ye” ( hēillu ) implies their right to give themselves up to their pain. In other cases complaint is unmanly, but here it is justifiable (compare Isa 15:4). In Isa 23:7 the question arises, whether ‛allizâh is a nominative predicate, as is generally assumed ( “Is this, this deserted heap of ruins, your formerly rejoicing city? ” ), or a vocative.

We prefer the latter, because there is nothing astonishing in the omission of the article in this case (Isa 22:2; Ewald, 327, a ); whereas in the former case, although it is certainly admissible (see Isa 32:13), it is very harsh (compare Isa 14:16), and the whole expression a very doubtful one to convey the sense of לכם אשר עליזה קריה הזאת. To ‛allizâh there is attached the descriptive, attributive clause: whose origin ( kadmâh , Eze 16:55) dates from the days of the olden time; and then a second “whose feet brought her far away ( raglaim construed as a masculine, as in Jer 13:16, for example) to dwell in a foreign land.

This is generally understood as signifying transportation by force into an enemy’s country. But Luzzatto very properly objects to this, partly on the ground that רגליה יבלוּה (her feet carried her) is the strongest expression that can be used for voluntary emigration, to which lâgūr (to settle) also corresponds; and partly because we miss the antithetical ועתּה, which we should expect with this interpretation.

The reference is to the trading journeys which extended “far away” (whether by land or sea), and to the colonies, i. e. , the settlements founded in those distant places, that leading characteristic of the Tyro-Phoenician people (this is expressed in the imperfect by yobiluâh , quam portabant ; gur is the most appropriate word to apply to such settlements: for mērâchōk , see at Isa 17:13).

Sidon was no doubt older than Tyre, but Tyre was also of primeval antiquity. Strabo speaks of its as the oldest Phoenician city “after Sidon;” Curtius calls it vetustate originis insignis ; and Josephus reckons the time from the founding of Tyre to the building of Solomon’s temple as 240 years ( Ant. viii. 3, 1; compare Herod. ii. 44). Tyre is called hammaēatirâh , not as wearing a crown (Vulg.

quondam coronata ), but as a distributor of crowns (Targum). Either would be suitable as a matter of fact; but the latter answers better to the hiphil (as hikrı̄n , hiphrı̄s , which are expressive of results produced from within outwards, can hardly be brought into comparison). Such colonies as Citium, Tartessus, and at first Carthage, were governed by kings appointed by the mother city, and dependent upon her.

Her merchants were princes (compare Isa 10:8), the most honoured of the earth; נכבּדּי acquires a superlative meaning from the genitive connection (Ges. §119, 2). From the fact that the Phoenicians had the commerce of the world in their hands, a merchant was called cena‛ani or cena‛an (Hos 12:8; from the latter, not from cin‛âni , the plural cin‛ânim which we find here is formed), and the merchandise cin‛âh .

The verb chillēl , to desecrate or profane, in connection with the “pomp of every kind of ornament,” leads us to think more especially of the holy places of both insular and continental Tyre, among which the temple of Melkarth in the new city of the former was the most prominent (according to the Arrian, Anab . ii. 16, παλαιότατον ὧν μνήμη ἀνθρωπίνη διασώζεται).

These glories, which were thought so inviolable, Jehovah will profane. “ To dishonour the chief men: ” lehâkēl ( ad ignominiam deducere , Vulg.) as in Isa 8:22.

Isa 23:6-9 The inhabitants of Tyre, who desired to escape from death or transportation, are obliged to take refuge in the colonies, and the farther off the better: not in Cyprus, not in Carthage (as at the time when Alexander attacked the insular Tyre), but in Tartessus itself, the farthest off towards the west, and the hardest to reach. “Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the coast!

Is this your fate, thou full of rejoicing, whose origin is from the days of the olden time, whom her feet carried far away to settle? Who hath determined such a thing concerning Tzor, the distributor of crowns, whose merchants are princes, whose traders are the chief men of the earth? Jehovah of hosts hath determined it, to desecrate the pomp of every kind of ornament, to dishonour the chief men of the earth, all of them.

” The exclamation “howl ye” ( hēillu ) implies their right to give themselves up to their pain. In other cases complaint is unmanly, but here it is justifiable (compare Isa 15:4). In Isa 23:7 the question arises, whether ‛allizâh is a nominative predicate, as is generally assumed ( “Is this, this deserted heap of ruins, your formerly rejoicing city? ” ), or a vocative.

We prefer the latter, because there is nothing astonishing in the omission of the article in this case (Isa 22:2; Ewald, 327, a ); whereas in the former case, although it is certainly admissible (see Isa 32:13), it is very harsh (compare Isa 14:16), and the whole expression a very doubtful one to convey the sense of לכם אשר עליזה קריה הזאת. To ‛allizâh there is attached the descriptive, attributive clause: whose origin ( kadmâh , Eze 16:55) dates from the days of the olden time; and then a second “whose feet brought her far away ( raglaim construed as a masculine, as in Jer 13:16, for example) to dwell in a foreign land.

This is generally understood as signifying transportation by force into an enemy’s country. But Luzzatto very properly objects to this, partly on the ground that רגליה יבלוּה (her feet carried her) is the strongest expression that can be used for voluntary emigration, to which lâgūr (to settle) also corresponds; and partly because we miss the antithetical ועתּה, which we should expect with this interpretation.

The reference is to the trading journeys which extended “far away” (whether by land or sea), and to the colonies, i. e. , the settlements founded in those distant places, that leading characteristic of the Tyro-Phoenician people (this is expressed in the imperfect by yobiluâh , quam portabant ; gur is the most appropriate word to apply to such settlements: for mērâchōk , see at Isa 17:13).

Sidon was no doubt older than Tyre, but Tyre was also of primeval antiquity. Strabo speaks of its as the oldest Phoenician city “after Sidon;” Curtius calls it vetustate originis insignis ; and Josephus reckons the time from the founding of Tyre to the building of Solomon’s temple as 240 years ( Ant. viii. 3, 1; compare Herod. ii. 44). Tyre is called hammaēatirâh , not as wearing a crown (Vulg.

quondam coronata ), but as a distributor of crowns (Targum). Either would be suitable as a matter of fact; but the latter answers better to the hiphil (as hikrı̄n , hiphrı̄s , which are expressive of results produced from within outwards, can hardly be brought into comparison). Such colonies as Citium, Tartessus, and at first Carthage, were governed by kings appointed by the mother city, and dependent upon her.

Her merchants were princes (compare Isa 10:8), the most honoured of the earth; נכבּדּי acquires a superlative meaning from the genitive connection (Ges. §119, 2). From the fact that the Phoenicians had the commerce of the world in their hands, a merchant was called cena‛ani or cena‛an (Hos 12:8; from the latter, not from cin‛âni , the plural cin‛ânim which we find here is formed), and the merchandise cin‛âh .

The verb chillēl , to desecrate or profane, in connection with the “pomp of every kind of ornament,” leads us to think more especially of the holy places of both insular and continental Tyre, among which the temple of Melkarth in the new city of the former was the most prominent (according to the Arrian, Anab . ii. 16, παλαιότατον ὧν μνήμη ἀνθρωπίνη διασώζεται).

These glories, which were thought so inviolable, Jehovah will profane. “ To dishonour the chief men: ” lehâkēl ( ad ignominiam deducere , Vulg.) as in Isa 8:22.

Isa 23:6-9 The inhabitants of Tyre, who desired to escape from death or transportation, are obliged to take refuge in the colonies, and the farther off the better: not in Cyprus, not in Carthage (as at the time when Alexander attacked the insular Tyre), but in Tartessus itself, the farthest off towards the west, and the hardest to reach. “Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the coast!

Is this your fate, thou full of rejoicing, whose origin is from the days of the olden time, whom her feet carried far away to settle? Who hath determined such a thing concerning Tzor, the distributor of crowns, whose merchants are princes, whose traders are the chief men of the earth? Jehovah of hosts hath determined it, to desecrate the pomp of every kind of ornament, to dishonour the chief men of the earth, all of them.

” The exclamation “howl ye” ( hēillu ) implies their right to give themselves up to their pain. In other cases complaint is unmanly, but here it is justifiable (compare Isa 15:4). In Isa 23:7 the question arises, whether ‛allizâh is a nominative predicate, as is generally assumed ( “Is this, this deserted heap of ruins, your formerly rejoicing city? ” ), or a vocative.

We prefer the latter, because there is nothing astonishing in the omission of the article in this case (Isa 22:2; Ewald, 327, a ); whereas in the former case, although it is certainly admissible (see Isa 32:13), it is very harsh (compare Isa 14:16), and the whole expression a very doubtful one to convey the sense of לכם אשר עליזה קריה הזאת. To ‛allizâh there is attached the descriptive, attributive clause: whose origin ( kadmâh , Eze 16:55) dates from the days of the olden time; and then a second “whose feet brought her far away ( raglaim construed as a masculine, as in Jer 13:16, for example) to dwell in a foreign land.

This is generally understood as signifying transportation by force into an enemy’s country. But Luzzatto very properly objects to this, partly on the ground that רגליה יבלוּה (her feet carried her) is the strongest expression that can be used for voluntary emigration, to which lâgūr (to settle) also corresponds; and partly because we miss the antithetical ועתּה, which we should expect with this interpretation.

The reference is to the trading journeys which extended “far away” (whether by land or sea), and to the colonies, i. e. , the settlements founded in those distant places, that leading characteristic of the Tyro-Phoenician people (this is expressed in the imperfect by yobiluâh , quam portabant ; gur is the most appropriate word to apply to such settlements: for mērâchōk , see at Isa 17:13).

Sidon was no doubt older than Tyre, but Tyre was also of primeval antiquity. Strabo speaks of its as the oldest Phoenician city “after Sidon;” Curtius calls it vetustate originis insignis ; and Josephus reckons the time from the founding of Tyre to the building of Solomon’s temple as 240 years ( Ant. viii. 3, 1; compare Herod. ii. 44). Tyre is called hammaēatirâh , not as wearing a crown (Vulg.

quondam coronata ), but as a distributor of crowns (Targum). Either would be suitable as a matter of fact; but the latter answers better to the hiphil (as hikrı̄n , hiphrı̄s , which are expressive of results produced from within outwards, can hardly be brought into comparison). Such colonies as Citium, Tartessus, and at first Carthage, were governed by kings appointed by the mother city, and dependent upon her.

Her merchants were princes (compare Isa 10:8), the most honoured of the earth; נכבּדּי acquires a superlative meaning from the genitive connection (Ges. §119, 2). From the fact that the Phoenicians had the commerce of the world in their hands, a merchant was called cena‛ani or cena‛an (Hos 12:8; from the latter, not from cin‛âni , the plural cin‛ânim which we find here is formed), and the merchandise cin‛âh .

The verb chillēl , to desecrate or profane, in connection with the “pomp of every kind of ornament,” leads us to think more especially of the holy places of both insular and continental Tyre, among which the temple of Melkarth in the new city of the former was the most prominent (according to the Arrian, Anab . ii. 16, παλαιότατον ὧν μνήμη ἀνθρωπίνη διασώζεται).

These glories, which were thought so inviolable, Jehovah will profane. “ To dishonour the chief men: ” lehâkēl ( ad ignominiam deducere , Vulg.) as in Isa 8:22.

Isa 23:10 The consequence of the fall of Tyre is, that the colonies achieve their independence, Tartessus being mentioned by way of example. “Overflow thy land like the Nile, O daughter of Tarshish! No girdle restrains thee any longer. ” The girdle ( mēzach ) is the supremacy of Tyre, which has hitherto restrained all independent action on the part of the colony.

Now they no longer need to wait in the harbour for the ships of the mother city, no longer to dig in the mines as her tributaries for silver and other metals. The colonial territory is their own freehold now, and they can spread themselves over it like the Nile when it passes beyond its banks and overflows the land. Koppe has already given this as the meaning of Isa 23:10.

Isa 23:11-12 The prophet now proceeds to relate, as it were, to the Pheonicio-Spanish colony, the daughter, i. e. , the population of Tartessus, what has happened to the mother country. “His hand hath He stretched over the sea, thrown kingdoms into trembling; Jehovah hath given commandment concerning Kena'an, to destroy her fortresses. And He said, Thou shalt not rejoice any further, thou disgraced one, virgin daughter of Sidon!

Get up to Kittim, go over; there also shalt thou not find rest. ” There is no ground whatever for restricting the “kingdoms” ( mamlâcoth ) to the several small Phoenician states (compare Isa 19:2). Jehovah, reaching over the sea, has thrown the lands of Hither Asia and Egypto-Ethiopia into a state of the most anxious excitement, and has summoned them as instruments of destruction with regard to Kenaēan (אל, like על in Est 4:5).

Phoenicia called itself Kena‛an (Canaan); but this is the only passage in the Old Testament in which the name occurs in this most restricted sense. לשׁמיד, for להשׁמיד, as in Num 5:22; Amo 8:4. The form מעזניה is more rare, but it is not a deformity, as Knobel and others maintain. There are other examples of the same resolution of the reduplication and transposition of the letters (it stands for מענזיה, possibly a Phoenician word; see Hitzig, Grabschrift , p.

16, and Levi, Phoenizische Studien , p. 17), viz. , תּמנוּ in Lam 3:22 (vid. , at Psa 64:7), and קבנו in Num 23:13, at least according to the Jewish grammar (see, however, Ewald, §250, b ). “Virgin of the daughter of Sidon” (equivalent to “virgin daughter of Sidon,” two epexegetical genitives; Ewald, §289, c ) is synonymous with Kena‛an . The name of the ancestral city (compare Isa 37:22) has here become the name of the whole nation that has sprung from it.

Hitherto this nation has been untouched, like a virgin, but now it resembles one ravished and defiled. If now they flee across to Cyprus ( cittiyim or cittim ), there will be no rest for them even there, because the colony, emancipated from the Phoenician yoke, will only be too glad to rid herself to the unwelcome guests from the despotic mother country.

Isa 23:11-12 The prophet now proceeds to relate, as it were, to the Pheonicio-Spanish colony, the daughter, i. e. , the population of Tartessus, what has happened to the mother country. “His hand hath He stretched over the sea, thrown kingdoms into trembling; Jehovah hath given commandment concerning Kena'an, to destroy her fortresses. And He said, Thou shalt not rejoice any further, thou disgraced one, virgin daughter of Sidon!

Get up to Kittim, go over; there also shalt thou not find rest. ” There is no ground whatever for restricting the “kingdoms” ( mamlâcoth ) to the several small Phoenician states (compare Isa 19:2). Jehovah, reaching over the sea, has thrown the lands of Hither Asia and Egypto-Ethiopia into a state of the most anxious excitement, and has summoned them as instruments of destruction with regard to Kenaēan (אל, like על in Est 4:5).

Phoenicia called itself Kena‛an (Canaan); but this is the only passage in the Old Testament in which the name occurs in this most restricted sense. לשׁמיד, for להשׁמיד, as in Num 5:22; Amo 8:4. The form מעזניה is more rare, but it is not a deformity, as Knobel and others maintain. There are other examples of the same resolution of the reduplication and transposition of the letters (it stands for מענזיה, possibly a Phoenician word; see Hitzig, Grabschrift , p.

16, and Levi, Phoenizische Studien , p. 17), viz. , תּמנוּ in Lam 3:22 (vid. , at Psa 64:7), and קבנו in Num 23:13, at least according to the Jewish grammar (see, however, Ewald, §250, b ). “Virgin of the daughter of Sidon” (equivalent to “virgin daughter of Sidon,” two epexegetical genitives; Ewald, §289, c ) is synonymous with Kena‛an . The name of the ancestral city (compare Isa 37:22) has here become the name of the whole nation that has sprung from it.

Hitherto this nation has been untouched, like a virgin, but now it resembles one ravished and defiled. If now they flee across to Cyprus ( cittiyim or cittim ), there will be no rest for them even there, because the colony, emancipated from the Phoenician yoke, will only be too glad to rid herself to the unwelcome guests from the despotic mother country.

Isa 23:13-14 The prophet now proceeds to describe the fate of Phoenicia. “Behold the Chaldean land: this people that has not been ( Asshur - it hath prepared the same for desert beasts ) - they set up their siege-towers, destroy the palaces of Kena'an, make it a heap of ruins. Mourn, he ships of Tarshish: for your fortress is laid waste. ” The general meaning of Isa 23:13, as the text now runs, is that the Chaldeans have destroyed Kenaēan , and in fact Tyre.

הקימוּ (they set up) points to the plural idea of “this people,” and בּחוּניו ( chethib בּחיניו) to the singular idea of the same; on the other hand, the feminine suffixes relate to Tyre. “They (the Chaldeans) have laid bare the palaces ( 'armenoth , from 'armoneth ) of Tyre,” i. e. , have thrown them down, or burned them down to their very foundations (עורר, from ערר = ערה, Psa 137:7, like ערער in Jer 51:58); it (the Chaldean people) has made her (Tyre) a heap of rubbish.

So far the text is clear, and there is no ground for hesitation. But the question arises, whether in the words לציּים יסדהּ אשּׁוּר Asshur is the subject or the object. In the former case the prophet points to the land of the Chaldeans, for the purpose of describing the instruments of divine wrath; and having called them “a nation which has not been” (היה לא), explains this by saying that Asshur first founded the land which the Chaldeans now inhabit for them, i.

e. , wild hordes (Psa 72:9); or better still (as tziyyim can hardly signify mountain hordes), that Asshur has made it (this nation, עם fem. , as in Jer 8:5; Exo 5:16) into dwellers in steppes (Knobel), which could not be conceived of in any other way than that Asshur settled the Chaldeans, who inhabited the northern mountains, in the present so-called land of Chaldea, and thus made the Chaldeans into a people, i.

e. , a settled, cultivated people, and a people bent on conquest and taking part in the history of the world (according to Knobel, primarily as a component part of the Assyrian army). But this view, which we meet with even in Calvin, is exposed to a grave difficulty. It is by no means improbable, indeed, that the Chaldeans, who were descendants of Nahor, according to Gen 22:22, and therefore of Semitic descent, came down from the mountains which bound Armenia, Media, and Assyria, having been forced out by the primitive migration of the Arians from west to east; although the more modern hypothesis, which represents them as a people of Tatar descent, and as mixing among the Shemites of the countries of the Euphrates and Tigris, has no historical support whatever, the very reverse being the case, according to Gen 10, since Babylon was of non-Semitic or Cushite origin, and therefore the land of Chaldea, as only a portion of Babylonia (Strabo, xvi.

1, 6), was the land of the Shemites. But the idea that the Assyrians brought them down from the mountains into the lowlands, though not under Ninus and Semiramis, as Vitringa supposes, but about the time of Shalmanassar (Ges. , Hitzig, Knobel, and others), is pure imagination, and merely an inference drawn from this passage. For this reason I have tried to give a different interpretation to the clause לציּים יסדהּ אשּׁוּר in my Com.

on Habakkuk (p. 22), viz. , “Asshur - it has assigned the same to the beasts of the desert. ” That Asshur may be used not only pre-eminently, but directly, for Nineveh (like Kena‛an for Tzor ), admits of no dispute, since even at the present day the ruins are called Arab. 'l - âṯūr , and this is probably a name applied to Nineveh in the arrow-headed writings also (Layard, Nineveh and its Remains ).

The word tziyyim is commonly applied to beasts of the wilderness (e. g. , Isa 13:21), and לציּים יסד for ציּה שׂם (used of Nineveh in Zep 2:13-14) may be explained in accordance with Psa 104:8. The form of the parenthetical clause, however, would be like that of the concluding clause of Amo 1:11. But what makes me distrustful even of this view is not a doctrinal ground (Winer, Real Wörterbuch , i.

218), but one taken from Isaiah’s own prophecy. Isaiah undoubtedly sees a Chaldean empire behind the Assyrian; but this would be the only passage in which he prophesied (and that quite by the way) how the imperial power would pass from the latter to the former. It was the task of Nahum and Zephaniah to draw this connecting line. It is true that this argument is not sufficient to outweigh the objections that can be brought against the other view, which makes the text declare a fact that is never mentioned anywhere else; but it is important nevertheless.

For this reason it is possible, indeed, that Ewald’s conjecture is a right one, and that the original reading of the text was כּנענים ארץ הן. Read in this manner, the first clause runs thus: “Behold the land of the Canaaneans: this people has come to nothing; Asshur has prepared it (their land) for the beasts of the desert. ” It is true that היה לא generally means not to exist, or not to have been (Oba 1:16); but there are also cases in which לא is used as a kind of substantive (cf.

, Jer 33:25), and the words mean to become or to have become nothing (Job 6:21; Eze 21:32, and possibly also Isa 15:6). Such an alteration of the text is not favoured, indeed, by any of the ancient versions. For our own part, we still abide by the explanation we have given in the Commentary on Habakkuk , not so much for this reason, as because the seventy years mentioned afterwards are a decisive proof that the prophet had the Chaldeans and not Asshur in view, as the instruments employed in executing the judgment upon Tyre.

The prophet points out the Chaldeans - that nation which (although of primeval antiquity, Jer 5:15) had not yet shown itself as a conqueror of the world (cf. , Hab 1:6), having been hitherto subject to the Assyrians; but which had now gained the mastery after having first of all destroyed Asshur, i. e. , Nineveh (namely, with the Medo-Babylonian army under Nabopolassar, the founder of the Neo-Babylonian empire, in 606 b.

c.) - as the destroyers of the palaces of Tyre. With the appeal to the ships of Tarshish to pour out their lamentation, the prophecy returns in Isa 23:14 to the opening words in Isa 23:1. According to Isa 23:4, the fortress here is insular Tyre. As the prophecy thus closes itself by completing the circle, Isa 23:15-18 might appear to be a later addition. This is no more the case, however, here, than in the last part of chapter 19.

Those critics, indeed, who do not acknowledge any special prophecies that are not vaticinia post eventum , are obliged to assign Isa 23:15-18 to the Persian era.

Isa 23:13-14 The prophet now proceeds to describe the fate of Phoenicia. “Behold the Chaldean land: this people that has not been ( Asshur - it hath prepared the same for desert beasts ) - they set up their siege-towers, destroy the palaces of Kena'an, make it a heap of ruins. Mourn, he ships of Tarshish: for your fortress is laid waste. ” The general meaning of Isa 23:13, as the text now runs, is that the Chaldeans have destroyed Kenaēan , and in fact Tyre.

הקימוּ (they set up) points to the plural idea of “this people,” and בּחוּניו ( chethib בּחיניו) to the singular idea of the same; on the other hand, the feminine suffixes relate to Tyre. “They (the Chaldeans) have laid bare the palaces ( 'armenoth , from 'armoneth ) of Tyre,” i. e. , have thrown them down, or burned them down to their very foundations (עורר, from ערר = ערה, Psa 137:7, like ערער in Jer 51:58); it (the Chaldean people) has made her (Tyre) a heap of rubbish.

So far the text is clear, and there is no ground for hesitation. But the question arises, whether in the words לציּים יסדהּ אשּׁוּר Asshur is the subject or the object. In the former case the prophet points to the land of the Chaldeans, for the purpose of describing the instruments of divine wrath; and having called them “a nation which has not been” (היה לא), explains this by saying that Asshur first founded the land which the Chaldeans now inhabit for them, i.

e. , wild hordes (Psa 72:9); or better still (as tziyyim can hardly signify mountain hordes), that Asshur has made it (this nation, עם fem. , as in Jer 8:5; Exo 5:16) into dwellers in steppes (Knobel), which could not be conceived of in any other way than that Asshur settled the Chaldeans, who inhabited the northern mountains, in the present so-called land of Chaldea, and thus made the Chaldeans into a people, i.

e. , a settled, cultivated people, and a people bent on conquest and taking part in the history of the world (according to Knobel, primarily as a component part of the Assyrian army). But this view, which we meet with even in Calvin, is exposed to a grave difficulty. It is by no means improbable, indeed, that the Chaldeans, who were descendants of Nahor, according to Gen 22:22, and therefore of Semitic descent, came down from the mountains which bound Armenia, Media, and Assyria, having been forced out by the primitive migration of the Arians from west to east; although the more modern hypothesis, which represents them as a people of Tatar descent, and as mixing among the Shemites of the countries of the Euphrates and Tigris, has no historical support whatever, the very reverse being the case, according to Gen 10, since Babylon was of non-Semitic or Cushite origin, and therefore the land of Chaldea, as only a portion of Babylonia (Strabo, xvi.

1, 6), was the land of the Shemites. But the idea that the Assyrians brought them down from the mountains into the lowlands, though not under Ninus and Semiramis, as Vitringa supposes, but about the time of Shalmanassar (Ges. , Hitzig, Knobel, and others), is pure imagination, and merely an inference drawn from this passage. For this reason I have tried to give a different interpretation to the clause לציּים יסדהּ אשּׁוּר in my Com.

on Habakkuk (p. 22), viz. , “Asshur - it has assigned the same to the beasts of the desert. ” That Asshur may be used not only pre-eminently, but directly, for Nineveh (like Kena‛an for Tzor ), admits of no dispute, since even at the present day the ruins are called Arab. 'l - âṯūr , and this is probably a name applied to Nineveh in the arrow-headed writings also (Layard, Nineveh and its Remains ).

The word tziyyim is commonly applied to beasts of the wilderness (e. g. , Isa 13:21), and לציּים יסד for ציּה שׂם (used of Nineveh in Zep 2:13-14) may be explained in accordance with Psa 104:8. The form of the parenthetical clause, however, would be like that of the concluding clause of Amo 1:11. But what makes me distrustful even of this view is not a doctrinal ground (Winer, Real Wörterbuch , i.

218), but one taken from Isaiah’s own prophecy. Isaiah undoubtedly sees a Chaldean empire behind the Assyrian; but this would be the only passage in which he prophesied (and that quite by the way) how the imperial power would pass from the latter to the former. It was the task of Nahum and Zephaniah to draw this connecting line. It is true that this argument is not sufficient to outweigh the objections that can be brought against the other view, which makes the text declare a fact that is never mentioned anywhere else; but it is important nevertheless.

For this reason it is possible, indeed, that Ewald’s conjecture is a right one, and that the original reading of the text was כּנענים ארץ הן. Read in this manner, the first clause runs thus: “Behold the land of the Canaaneans: this people has come to nothing; Asshur has prepared it (their land) for the beasts of the desert. ” It is true that היה לא generally means not to exist, or not to have been (Oba 1:16); but there are also cases in which לא is used as a kind of substantive (cf.

, Jer 33:25), and the words mean to become or to have become nothing (Job 6:21; Eze 21:32, and possibly also Isa 15:6). Such an alteration of the text is not favoured, indeed, by any of the ancient versions. For our own part, we still abide by the explanation we have given in the Commentary on Habakkuk , not so much for this reason, as because the seventy years mentioned afterwards are a decisive proof that the prophet had the Chaldeans and not Asshur in view, as the instruments employed in executing the judgment upon Tyre.

The prophet points out the Chaldeans - that nation which (although of primeval antiquity, Jer 5:15) had not yet shown itself as a conqueror of the world (cf. , Hab 1:6), having been hitherto subject to the Assyrians; but which had now gained the mastery after having first of all destroyed Asshur, i. e. , Nineveh (namely, with the Medo-Babylonian army under Nabopolassar, the founder of the Neo-Babylonian empire, in 606 b.

c.) - as the destroyers of the palaces of Tyre. With the appeal to the ships of Tarshish to pour out their lamentation, the prophecy returns in Isa 23:14 to the opening words in Isa 23:1. According to Isa 23:4, the fortress here is insular Tyre. As the prophecy thus closes itself by completing the circle, Isa 23:15-18 might appear to be a later addition. This is no more the case, however, here, than in the last part of chapter 19.

Those critics, indeed, who do not acknowledge any special prophecies that are not vaticinia post eventum , are obliged to assign Isa 23:15-18 to the Persian era.

Isa 23:15-16 The prophet here foretells the rise of Tyre again at the close of the Chaldean world-wide monarchy. “And it will come to pass in that day, that Tzor will be forgotten seventy years, equal to the days of one king; after the end of the seventy years, Tzor will go, according to the song of the harlot. Take the guitar, sweep through the city, O forgotten harlot!

Play bravely, sing zealously, that thou mayest be remembered! ” The “ days of a king ” are a fixed and unchangeable period, for which everything is determined by the one sovereign will (as is the case more especially in the East), and is therefore stereotyped. The seventy years are compared to the days of such a king. Seventy is well fitted to be the number used to denote a uniform period of this kind, being equal to 10 x 7, i.

e. , a compact series of heptads of years ( shabbathoth ). But the number is also historical, prophecy being the power by which the history of the future was “periodized” beforehand in this significant manner. They coincide with the seventy years of Jeremiah (compare 2Ch 36:21), that is to say, with the duration of the Chaldean rule. During this period Tyre continued with its world-wide commerce in a state of involuntary repose.

“ Tyre will be forgotten: ” v'nishcachath is not a participle (Böttcher), but the perf. cons. which is required here, and stands for ונשׁכּחה with an original ת fem. (cf. , Isa 7:14; Psa 118:23). After the seventy years (that is to say, along with the commencement of the Persian rule) the harlot is welcomed again. She is like a bayadere or troubadour going through the streets with song and guitar, and bringing her charms into notice again.

The prophecy here falls into the tone of a popular song, as in Isa 5:1 and Isa 27:2. It will be with Tyre as with such a musician and dancer as the one described in the popular song.

Isa 23:15-16 The prophet here foretells the rise of Tyre again at the close of the Chaldean world-wide monarchy. “And it will come to pass in that day, that Tzor will be forgotten seventy years, equal to the days of one king; after the end of the seventy years, Tzor will go, according to the song of the harlot. Take the guitar, sweep through the city, O forgotten harlot!

Play bravely, sing zealously, that thou mayest be remembered! ” The “ days of a king ” are a fixed and unchangeable period, for which everything is determined by the one sovereign will (as is the case more especially in the East), and is therefore stereotyped. The seventy years are compared to the days of such a king. Seventy is well fitted to be the number used to denote a uniform period of this kind, being equal to 10 x 7, i.

e. , a compact series of heptads of years ( shabbathoth ). But the number is also historical, prophecy being the power by which the history of the future was “periodized” beforehand in this significant manner. They coincide with the seventy years of Jeremiah (compare 2Ch 36:21), that is to say, with the duration of the Chaldean rule. During this period Tyre continued with its world-wide commerce in a state of involuntary repose.

“ Tyre will be forgotten: ” v'nishcachath is not a participle (Böttcher), but the perf. cons. which is required here, and stands for ונשׁכּחה with an original ת fem. (cf. , Isa 7:14; Psa 118:23). After the seventy years (that is to say, along with the commencement of the Persian rule) the harlot is welcomed again. She is like a bayadere or troubadour going through the streets with song and guitar, and bringing her charms into notice again.

The prophecy here falls into the tone of a popular song, as in Isa 5:1 and Isa 27:2. It will be with Tyre as with such a musician and dancer as the one described in the popular song.

Isa 23:17 When it begins again to make love to all the world, it will get rich again from the gain acquired by this worldly intercourse. “And it will come to pass at the end of the seventy years: Jehovah will visit Tzor, and she comes again to her hire, and commits prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth on the broad surface of the globe. ” Such mercantile trading as hers, which is only bent upon earthly advantages, is called zânâh , on account of its recognising none of the limits opposed by God, and making itself common to all the world, partly because it is a prostitution of the soul, and partly because from the very earliest times the prostitution of the body was also a common thing in markets and fairs, more especially in those of Phoenicia (as the Phoenicians were worshippers of Astarte).

Hence the gain acquired by commerce, which Tyre had now secured again, is called 'ethnân (Deu 23:19), with a feminine suffix, according to the Masora without mappik (Ewald, §247, a ).

Isa 23:18 This restoration of the trade of Tyre is called a visitation on the part of Jehovah, because, however profane the conduct of Tyre might be, it was nevertheless a holy purpose to which Jehovah rendered it subservient. “And her gain and her reward of prostitution will be holy to Jehovah: it is not stored up nor gathered together; but her gain from commerce will be theirs who dwell before Jehovah, to eat to satiety and for stately clothing.

” It is not the conversion of Tyre which is held up to view, but something approaching it. Sachar (which does not render it at all necessary to assume a form sâchâr for Isa 23:3) is used here in connection with 'ethnân , to denote the occupation itself which yielded the profit. This, and also the profit acquired, would become holy to Jehovah; the latter would not be treasured up and capitalized as it formerly was, but they would give tribute and presents from it to Israel, and thus help to sustain in abundance and clothe in stately dress the nation which dwelt before Jehovah, i.

e. , whose true dwelling-place was in the temple before the presence of God (Psa 27:4; Psa 84:5; mecasseh = that which covers, i. e. , the covering; ‛âthik , like the Arabic ‛atik , old, noble, honourable). A strange prospect! As Jerome says, “ Haec secundum historiam necdum facta comperimus . ” The Assyrians, therefore, were not the predicted instruments of the punishment to be inflicted upon Phoenicia.

Nor was Shalmanassar successful in his Phoenician war, as the extract from the chronicle of Menander in the Antiquities of Josephus ( Ant. ix. 14, 2) clearly shows. Elulaeus, the king of Tyre, had succeeded in once more subduing the rebellious Cyprians ( Kittaioi ). But with their assistance (if indeed ἐπὶ τούτους πέμπσας is to be so interpreted) Shalmanassar made war upon Phoenicia, though a general peace soon put an end to this campaign.

Thereupon Sidon, Ace, Palaetyrus, and many other cities, fell away from Tyrus (insular Tyre), and placed themselves under Assyrian supremacy. But as the Tyrians would not do this, Shalmanassar renewed the war; and the Phoenicians that were under his sway supplied him with six hundred ships and eight hundred rowers for this purpose. The Tyrians, however, fell upon them with twelve vessels of war, and having scattered the hostile fleet, took about five hundred prisoners.

This considerably heightened the distinction of Tyre. And the king of Assyria was obliged to content himself with stationing guards on the river (Leontes), and at the conduits, to cut off the supply of fresh water from the Tyrians. This lasted for five years, during the whole of which time the Tyrians drank from wells that they hand sunk themselves. Now, unless we want to lower the prophecy into a mere picture of the imagination, we cannot understand it as pointing to Asshur as the instrument of punishment, for the simple reason that Shalmanassar was obliged to withdraw from the “fortress of the sea” without accomplishing his purpose, and only succeeded in raising it to all the greater honour.

But it is a question whether even Nebuchadnezzar was more successful with insular Tyre. All that Josephus is able to tell us from the Indian and Phoenician stories of Philostratus, is that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the reign of Ithobal ( Ant. x. 11, 1). And from Phoenician sources themselves, he merely relates (c. Ap. i. 21) that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years under Ithobal (viz.

, from the seventh year of his reign onwards). But so much, at any rate, may apparently be gathered from the account of the Tyrian government which follows, viz. , that the Persian era was preceded by the subjection of the Tyrians to the Chaldeans, inasmuch as they sent twice to fetch their king from Babylon. When the Chaldeans made themselves masters of the Assyrian empire, Phoenicia (whether with or without insular Tyre, we do not know) was a satrapy of that empire (Josephus, Ant.

x. 11, 1; c. Ap. i. 19, from Berosus), and this relation still continued at the close of the Chaldean rule. So much is certain, however - and Berosus, in fact, says it expressly - viz. that Nebuchadnezzar once more subdued Phoenicia when it rose in rebellion; and that when he was called home to Babylon in consequence of the death of his father, he returned with Phoenician prisoners.

What we want, however, is a direct account of the conquest of Tyre by the Chaldeans. Neither Josephus nor Jerome could give any such account. And the Old Testament Scriptures appear to state the very opposite - namely, the failure of Nebuchadnezzar’s enterprise. For in the twenty-seventh year after Jehoiachim’s captivity (the sixteenth from the destruction of Jerusalem) the following word of the Lord came to Ezekiel (Eze 29:17-18): “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon has caused his army to perform a long and hard service against Tyre: every head is made bald, and every shoulder peeled; yet neither he nor his army has any wages at Tyre for the hard service which they have performed around the same.

” It then goes on to announce that Jehovah would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar, and that this would be the wages of his army. Gesenius, Winer, Hitzig, and others, infer from this passage, when taken in connection with other non-Israelitish testimonies given by Josephus, which merely speak of a siege, that Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer Tyre; but Hengstenberg ( de rebus Tyriorum , 1832), Hävernick ( Ezek .

pp. 427-442), and Drechsler ( Isaiah ii. 166-169) maintain by arguments, which have been passed again and again through the sieve, that this passage presupposes the conquest of Tyre, and merely announces the disproportion between the profit which Nebuchadnezzar derived from it and the effort that it cost him. Jerome (on Ezekiel) gives the same explanation. When the army of Nebuchadnezzar had made insular Tyre accessible by heaping up an embankment with enormous exertions, and they were in a position to make use of their siege artillery, they found that the Tyrians had carried away all their wealth in vessels to the neighbouring islands; “so that when the city was taken, Nebuchadnezzar found nothing to repay him for his labour; and because he had obeyed the will of God in this undertaking, after the Tyrian captivity had lasted a few years, Egypt was given to him” (Jerome).

I also regard this as the correct view to take; though without wishing to maintain that the words might not be understood as implying the failure of the siege, quite as readily as the uselessness of the conquest. But on the two following grounds, I am persuaded that they are used here in the latter sense. (1.) In the great trilogy which contains Ezekiel’s prophecy against Tyre (Ezek 26-28), and in which he more than once introduces thoughts and figures from Isaiah 23, which he still further amplifies and elaborates (according to the general relation in which he stands to his predecessors, of whom he does not make a species of mosaic, as Jeremiah does, but whom he rather expands, fills up, and paraphrases, as seen more especially in his relation to Zephaniah), he predicts the conquest of insular Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar.

He foretells indeed even more than this; but if Tyre had not been at least conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, the prophecy would have fallen completely to the ground, like any merely human hope. Now we candidly confess that, on doctrinal grounds, it is impossible for us to make such an assumption as this. There is indeed an element of human hope in all prophecy, but it does not reach such a point as to be put to shame by the test supplied in Deu 18:21-22.

(2.) If I take a comprehensive survey of the following ancient testimonies: ( a ) that Nebuchadnezzar, when called home in consequence of his father’s death, took some Phoenician prisoners with him (Berosus, ut sup. ); ( b ) that with this fact before us, the statement found in the Phoenician sources, to the effect that the Tyrians fetched two of their rulers from Babylon, viz.

, Merbal and Eirom, presents a much greater resemblance to 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 24:14, and Dan 1:3, than to 1Ki 12:2-3, with which Hitzig compares it; ( c ) that, according to Josephus (c. Ap. i. 20), it was stated “in the archives of the Phoenicians concerning this king Nebuchadnezzar, that he conquered all Syria and Phoenicia;” and ( d ) that the voluntary submission to the Persians (Herod.

Isa 3:19; Xen. Cyrop. i. 1, 4) was not the commencement of servitude, but merely a change of masters; - if, I say, I put all these things together, the conclusion to which I am brought is, that the thirteen years’ siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar ended in its capture, possibly through capitulation (as Winer, Movers, and others assume). The difficulties which present themselves to us when we compare together the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, are still no doubt very far from being removed; but it is in this way alone that any solution of the difficulty is to be found.

For even assuming that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Tyre, he did not destroy it, as the words of the two prophecies would lead us to expect. The real solution of the difficulty has been already given by Hävernick and Drechsler: “The prophet sees the whole enormous mass of destruction which eventually came upon the city, concentrated, as it were, in Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, inasmuch as in the actual historical development it was linked on to that fact like a closely connected chain.

The power of Tyre as broken by Nebuchadnezzar is associated in his view with its utter destruction. ” Even Alexander did not destroy Tyre, when he had conquered it after seven months’ enormous exertions. Tyre was still a flourishing commercial city of considerable importance under both the Syrian and the Roman sway. In the time of the Crusades it was still the same; and even the Crusaders, who conquered it in 1125, did not destroy it.

It was not till about a century and a half later that the destruction was commenced by the removal of the fortifications on the part of the Saracens. At the present time, all the glory of Tyre is either sunk in the sea or buried beneath the sand - an inexhaustible mine of building materials for Beirut and other towns upon the coast. Amidst these vast ruins of the island city, there is nothing standing now but a village of wretched wooden huts.

And the island is an island no longer. The embankment which Alexander threw up has grown into a still broader and stronger tongue of earth through the washing up of sand, and now connects the island with the shore - a standing memorial of divine justice (Strauss, Sinai und Golgotha , p. 357). This picture of destruction stands before the prophet’s mental eye, and indeed immediately behind the attack of the Chaldeans upon Tyre - the two thousand years between being so compressed, that the whole appears as a continuous event.

This is the well-known law of perspective, by which prophecy is governed throughout. This law cannot have been unknown to the prophets themselves, inasmuch as they needed it to accredit their prophecies even to themselves. Still more was it necessary for future ages, in order that they might not be deceived with regard to the prophecy, that this universally determining law, in which human limitations are left unresolved, and are miraculously intermingled with the eternal view of God, should be clearly known.

The cycle of prophecies which commences here has no other parallel in the Old Testament than perhaps Zech. Both sections are thoroughly eschatological and apocryphal in their character, and start from apparently sharply defined historical circumstances, which vanish, however, like will-o'the-wisps, as soon as you attempt to follow and seize them; for the simple reason, that the prophet lays hold of their radical idea, carries them out beyond their outward historical form, and uses them as emblems of far-off events of the last days.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of modern critics, from the time of Eichhorn and Koppe, have denied the genuineness of these four chapters (Isaiah 24-27), notwithstanding the fact that there is nothing in the words themselves that passes beyond the Assyrian times. Rosenmüller did this in the first edition of his Scholia ; but in the second and third editions he has fallen into another error, chiefly because the prophecy contains nothing which passes beyond the political horizon of Isaiah’s own times.

Now we cannot accept this test of genuineness; it is just one of the will-o'-the-wisps already referred to. Another consequence of this phenomenon is, that our critical opponents inevitably get entangled in contradictions as soon as they seek for a different historical basis for this cycle of prophecies from that of Isaiah’s own times. According to Gesenius, De Wette, Maurer, and Umbreit, the author wrote in Babylonia; according to Eichhorn, Ewald, and Knobel, in Judah.

In the opinion of some, he wrote at the close of the captivity; in that of others, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah. Hitzig supposes the imperial city, whose destruction is predicted, to be Nineveh; others, for the most part, suppose it to be Babylon. But the prophet only mentions Egypt and Asshur as powers by which Israel is enslaved; and Knobel consequently imagines that he wrote in this figurative manner from fear of the enemies that were still dwelling in Judah.

This wavering arises from the fact, that what is apparently historical is simply an eschatological emblem. It is quite impossible to determine whether that which sounds historical belonged to the present or past in relation to the prophet himself. His standing-place was beyond all the history that has passed by, even down to the present day; and everything belonging to this history was merely a figure in the mirror of the last lines.

Let it be once established that no human critics can determine à priori the measure of divine revelation granted to any prophet, and all possible grounds combine to vindicate Isaiah’s authorship of chapters 24-27, as demanded by its place in the book of Isaiah. Appended as they are to chapters 13-23 without a distinct heading, they are intended to stand in a relation of steady progress to the oracles concerning the nations; and this relation is sustained by the fact that Jeremiah read them in connection with these oracles (compare Isa 24:17-18, with Jer 48:43-44), and that they are full of retrospective allusions, which run out like a hundred threads, though grasped, as it were, in a single hand.

Chapters 24-27 stand in the same relation to chapters 13-23, as chapters 11, Isa 12:1-6 to chapters 7-10. The particular judgments predicted in the oracle against the nations, all flow into the last judgment as into a sea; and all the salvation which formed the shining edge of the oracles against the nations, is here concentrated in the glory of a mid-day sun.

Chapters 24-27 form the finale to chapters 13-23, and that in a strictly musical sense. What the finale should do in a piece of music - namely, gather up the scattered changes into a grand impressive whole - is done here by this closing cycle. But even part from this, it is full of music and song. The description of the catastrophe in chapter 24 is followed by a simple hymnal echo.

As the book of Immanuel closes in Isa 12:1-6 with a psalm of the redeemed, so have we here a fourfold song of praise. The overthrow of the imperial city is celebrated in a song in Isa 25:1-5; another song in Isa 25:9 describes how Jehovah reveals himself with His saving presence; another in Isaiah 26:1-19 celebrates the restoration and resurrection of Israel; and a fourth in Isa 27:2-5 describes the vineyard of the church bringing forth fruit under the protection of Jehovah.

And these songs contain every variety, from the most elevated heavenly hymn to the tenderest popular song. It is a grand manifold concert, which is merely introduced, as it were, by the epic opening in chapter 24 and the epic close in Isa 27:6. , and in the midst of which the prophecy unfolds itself in a kind of recitative. Moreover, we do not find so much real music anywhere else in the ring of the words.

The heaping up of paronomasia has been placed among the arguments against the genuineness of these chapters. But we have already shown by many examples, drawn from undisputed prophecies (such as Isa 22:5; Isa 17:12-13), that Isaiah is fond of painting for the ear; and the reason why he does it here more than anywhere else, is that chapters 24-27 formed a finale that was intended to surpass all that had gone before.

The whole of this finale is a grand hallelujah to chapters 13-23, hymnic in its character, and musical in form, and that to such a degree, that, like Isa 25:6, the prophecy is, as it were, both text and divisions at the same time. There was no other than Isaiah who was so incomparable a master of language. Again, the incomparable depth in the contents of chapters 24-27 does not shake our confidence in his authorship, since the whole book of this Solomon among the prophets is full of what is incomparable.

And in addition to much that is peculiar in this cycle of prophecies, which does not astonish us in a prophet so richly endowed, and so characterized by a continual change “from glory to glory,” the whole cycle is so thoroughly Isaiah’s in its deepest foundation, and in a hundred points of detail, that it is most uncritical to pronounce the whole to be certainly not Isaiah’s simply because of these peculiarities. So far as the eschatological and apocalyptical contents, which seem to point to a very late period, are concerned, we would simply call to mind the wealth of eschatological ideas to be found even in Joel, who prophesies of the pouring out of the Spirit, the march of the nations of the world against the church, the signs that precede the last day, the miraculous water of the New Jerusalem.

The revelation of all the last things, which the Apocalypse of the New Testament embraces in one grand picture, commenced with Obadiah and Joel; and there is nothing strange in the fact that Isaiah also, in chapters 24-27, should turn away from the immediate external facts of the history of his own time, and pass on to these depths beyond.

Isa 24:1-3 It is thoroughly characteristic of Isaiah, that the commencement of this prophecy, like Isa 19:1, places us at once in the very midst of the catastrophe, and condenses the contents of the subsequent picture of judgment into a few rapid, vigorous, vivid, and comprehensive clauses (like Isa 15:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 23:1, cf. , Isa 33:1). “Behold, Jehovah emptieth the earth, and layeth it waste, and marreth its form, and scattereth its inhabitants.

And it happeneth, as to the people, so to the priest; as to the servant, so to his master; as to the maid, so to her mistress; as to the buyer, so to the seller; as to the lender, so to the borrower; as to the creditor, so to the debtor. Emptying the earth is emptied, and plundering is plundered: for Jehovah hat spoken this word. ” The question, whether the prophet is speaking of a past of future judgment, which is one of importance to the interpretation of the whole, is answered by the fact that with Isaiah “ hinnēh ” (behold) always refers to something future (Isa 3:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 19:1; Isa 30:27, etc.)

And it is only in his case, that we do meet with prophecies commencing so immediately with hinnēh . Those in Jeremiah which approach this the most nearly (viz. , Jer 47:2; Jer 49:35, cf. , Isa 51:1, and Eze 29:3) do indeed commence with hinnēh , but not without being preceded by an introductory formula. The opening “behold” corresponds to the confirmatory “for Jehovah hath spoken,” which is always employed by Isaiah at the close of statements with regard to the future and occurs chiefly, though not exclusively, in the book of Isaiah, whom we may recognise in the detailed description in Isa 24:2 (vid.

, Isa 2:12-16; Isa 3:2-3, Isa 3:18-23, as compared with Isa 9:13; also with the description of judgment in Isa 19:2-4, which closes in a similar manner). Thus at the very outset we meet with Isaiah’s peculiarities; and Caspari is right in saying that no prophecy could possibly commence with more of the characteristics of Isaiah than the prophecy before us. The play upon words commences at the very outset.

Bâkak and bâlak (compare the Arabic ballūka , a blank, naked desert) have the same ring, just as in Nah 2:11, cf. , Isa 24:3, and Jer 51:2. The niphal futures are intentionally written like verbs Pe - Vâv ( tibbōk and tibbōz , instead of tibbak and tibbaz ), for the purpose of making them rhyme with the infinitive absolutes (cf. , Isa 22:13). So, again, caggebirtâh is so written instead of cigbirtâh , to produce a greater resemblance to the opening syllable of the other words.

The form נשׁה is interchanged with נשׁא) (as in 1Sa 22:2), or, according to Kimchi’s way of writing it, with נשׁא) (written with tzere ), just as in other passages we meet with נשׁא along with נשׁה, and, judging from Arab. ns' , to postpone or credit, the former is the primary form. Nōsheh is the creditor, and בו נשׁא אשׁר is not the person who has borrowed of him, but, as נשה invariably signifies to credit ( hiphil , to give credit), the person whom he credits (with ב obj.

, like בּ נגשׂ in Isa 9:3), not “the person through whom he is נשׁא)” (Hitzig on Jer 15:10). Hence, “lender and borrower, creditor and debtor” (or taker of credit). It is a judgment which embraces all, without distinction of rank and condition; and it is a universal one, not merely throughout the whole of the land of Israel (as even Drechsler renders הארץ), but in all the earth; for as Arndt correctly observes, הארץ signifies “the earth” in this passage, including, as in Isa 11:4, the ethical New Testament idea of “the world” ( kosmos ).

Isa 24:1-3 It is thoroughly characteristic of Isaiah, that the commencement of this prophecy, like Isa 19:1, places us at once in the very midst of the catastrophe, and condenses the contents of the subsequent picture of judgment into a few rapid, vigorous, vivid, and comprehensive clauses (like Isa 15:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 23:1, cf. , Isa 33:1). “Behold, Jehovah emptieth the earth, and layeth it waste, and marreth its form, and scattereth its inhabitants.

And it happeneth, as to the people, so to the priest; as to the servant, so to his master; as to the maid, so to her mistress; as to the buyer, so to the seller; as to the lender, so to the borrower; as to the creditor, so to the debtor. Emptying the earth is emptied, and plundering is plundered: for Jehovah hat spoken this word. ” The question, whether the prophet is speaking of a past of future judgment, which is one of importance to the interpretation of the whole, is answered by the fact that with Isaiah “ hinnēh ” (behold) always refers to something future (Isa 3:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 19:1; Isa 30:27, etc.)

And it is only in his case, that we do meet with prophecies commencing so immediately with hinnēh . Those in Jeremiah which approach this the most nearly (viz. , Jer 47:2; Jer 49:35, cf. , Isa 51:1, and Eze 29:3) do indeed commence with hinnēh , but not without being preceded by an introductory formula. The opening “behold” corresponds to the confirmatory “for Jehovah hath spoken,” which is always employed by Isaiah at the close of statements with regard to the future and occurs chiefly, though not exclusively, in the book of Isaiah, whom we may recognise in the detailed description in Isa 24:2 (vid.

, Isa 2:12-16; Isa 3:2-3, Isa 3:18-23, as compared with Isa 9:13; also with the description of judgment in Isa 19:2-4, which closes in a similar manner). Thus at the very outset we meet with Isaiah’s peculiarities; and Caspari is right in saying that no prophecy could possibly commence with more of the characteristics of Isaiah than the prophecy before us. The play upon words commences at the very outset.

Bâkak and bâlak (compare the Arabic ballūka , a blank, naked desert) have the same ring, just as in Nah 2:11, cf. , Isa 24:3, and Jer 51:2. The niphal futures are intentionally written like verbs Pe - Vâv ( tibbōk and tibbōz , instead of tibbak and tibbaz ), for the purpose of making them rhyme with the infinitive absolutes (cf. , Isa 22:13). So, again, caggebirtâh is so written instead of cigbirtâh , to produce a greater resemblance to the opening syllable of the other words.

The form נשׁה is interchanged with נשׁא) (as in 1Sa 22:2), or, according to Kimchi’s way of writing it, with נשׁא) (written with tzere ), just as in other passages we meet with נשׁא along with נשׁה, and, judging from Arab. ns' , to postpone or credit, the former is the primary form. Nōsheh is the creditor, and בו נשׁא אשׁר is not the person who has borrowed of him, but, as נשה invariably signifies to credit ( hiphil , to give credit), the person whom he credits (with ב obj.

, like בּ נגשׂ in Isa 9:3), not “the person through whom he is נשׁא)” (Hitzig on Jer 15:10). Hence, “lender and borrower, creditor and debtor” (or taker of credit). It is a judgment which embraces all, without distinction of rank and condition; and it is a universal one, not merely throughout the whole of the land of Israel (as even Drechsler renders הארץ), but in all the earth; for as Arndt correctly observes, הארץ signifies “the earth” in this passage, including, as in Isa 11:4, the ethical New Testament idea of “the world” ( kosmos ).

Isa 24:1-3 It is thoroughly characteristic of Isaiah, that the commencement of this prophecy, like Isa 19:1, places us at once in the very midst of the catastrophe, and condenses the contents of the subsequent picture of judgment into a few rapid, vigorous, vivid, and comprehensive clauses (like Isa 15:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 23:1, cf. , Isa 33:1). “Behold, Jehovah emptieth the earth, and layeth it waste, and marreth its form, and scattereth its inhabitants.

And it happeneth, as to the people, so to the priest; as to the servant, so to his master; as to the maid, so to her mistress; as to the buyer, so to the seller; as to the lender, so to the borrower; as to the creditor, so to the debtor. Emptying the earth is emptied, and plundering is plundered: for Jehovah hat spoken this word. ” The question, whether the prophet is speaking of a past of future judgment, which is one of importance to the interpretation of the whole, is answered by the fact that with Isaiah “ hinnēh ” (behold) always refers to something future (Isa 3:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 19:1; Isa 30:27, etc.)

And it is only in his case, that we do meet with prophecies commencing so immediately with hinnēh . Those in Jeremiah which approach this the most nearly (viz. , Jer 47:2; Jer 49:35, cf. , Isa 51:1, and Eze 29:3) do indeed commence with hinnēh , but not without being preceded by an introductory formula. The opening “behold” corresponds to the confirmatory “for Jehovah hath spoken,” which is always employed by Isaiah at the close of statements with regard to the future and occurs chiefly, though not exclusively, in the book of Isaiah, whom we may recognise in the detailed description in Isa 24:2 (vid.

, Isa 2:12-16; Isa 3:2-3, Isa 3:18-23, as compared with Isa 9:13; also with the description of judgment in Isa 19:2-4, which closes in a similar manner). Thus at the very outset we meet with Isaiah’s peculiarities; and Caspari is right in saying that no prophecy could possibly commence with more of the characteristics of Isaiah than the prophecy before us. The play upon words commences at the very outset.

Bâkak and bâlak (compare the Arabic ballūka , a blank, naked desert) have the same ring, just as in Nah 2:11, cf. , Isa 24:3, and Jer 51:2. The niphal futures are intentionally written like verbs Pe - Vâv ( tibbōk and tibbōz , instead of tibbak and tibbaz ), for the purpose of making them rhyme with the infinitive absolutes (cf. , Isa 22:13). So, again, caggebirtâh is so written instead of cigbirtâh , to produce a greater resemblance to the opening syllable of the other words.

The form נשׁה is interchanged with נשׁא) (as in 1Sa 22:2), or, according to Kimchi’s way of writing it, with נשׁא) (written with tzere ), just as in other passages we meet with נשׁא along with נשׁה, and, judging from Arab. ns' , to postpone or credit, the former is the primary form. Nōsheh is the creditor, and בו נשׁא אשׁר is not the person who has borrowed of him, but, as נשה invariably signifies to credit ( hiphil , to give credit), the person whom he credits (with ב obj.

, like בּ נגשׂ in Isa 9:3), not “the person through whom he is נשׁא)” (Hitzig on Jer 15:10). Hence, “lender and borrower, creditor and debtor” (or taker of credit). It is a judgment which embraces all, without distinction of rank and condition; and it is a universal one, not merely throughout the whole of the land of Israel (as even Drechsler renders הארץ), but in all the earth; for as Arndt correctly observes, הארץ signifies “the earth” in this passage, including, as in Isa 11:4, the ethical New Testament idea of “the world” ( kosmos ).

Isa 24:4-9 That this is the case is evident from Isa 24:4-9, where the accursed state into which the earth is brought is more fully described, and the cause thereof is given. “Smitten down, withered up is the earth; pined away, wasted away is the world; pined away have they, the foremost of the people of the earth. And the earth has become wicked among its inhabitants; for they transgressed revelations, set at nought the ordinance, broke the everlasting covenant.

Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they who dwelt in it make expiation: therefore are the inhabitants of the earth withered up, and there are very few mortals left. New wine mourneth, vine is parched, all the merry-hearted groan. The joyous playing of tabrets is silent; the noise of them that rejoice hath ceased; the joyous playing of the guitar is silent.

They drink no wine with a song; meth tastes bitter to them that drink it. ” “The world” ( tēbēl ) is used here in Isa 24:4, as in Isa 26:9 (always in the form of a proper name, and without the article), as a parallel to “ the earth ” ( hâ'âretz ), with which it alternates throughout this cycle of prophecies. It is used poetically to signify the globe, and that without limitation (even in Isa 13:11 and Isa 18:3); and therefore “the earth” is also to be understood here in its most comprehensive sense (in a different sense, therefore, from Isa 33:9, which contains the same play upon sounds).

The earth is sunk in mourning, and has become like a faded plant, withered up with heat; the high ones of the people of the earth ( merōm ; abstr. pro concr. , like câbōd in Isa 5:13; Isa 22:24) are included (עם is used, as in Isa 42:5; Isa 40:7, to signify humanity, i. e. , man generally). אמללוּ (for the form, see Comm. on Job , at Job 18:16-19) stands in half pause, which throws the subjective notion that follows into greater prominence.

It is the punishment of the inhabitants of the earth, which the earth has to share, because it has shared in the wickedness of those who live upon it: chânaph (not related to tânaph ) signifies to be degenerate, to have decided for what is evil (Isa 9:16), to be wicked; and in this intransitive sense it is applied to the land, which is said to be affected with the guilt of wicked, reckless conduct, more especially of blood-guiltiness (Psa 106:38; Num 35:33; compare the transitive use in Jer 3:9). The wicked conduct of men, which has caused the earth also to become chanēphâh , is described in three short, rapid, involuntarily excited sentences (compare Isa 15:6; Isa 16:4; Isa 29:20; Isa 33:8; also Isa 24:5; Isa 1:4, Isa 1:6, Isa 1:8; out of the book of Isaiah, however, we only meet with this in Joe 1:10, and possibly Jos 7:11).

Understanding “the earth” as we do in a general sense, “the law” cannot signify merely the positive law of Israel. The Gentile world had also a torâh or divine teaching within, which contained an abundance of divine directions ( tōrōth ). They also had a law written in their hearts; and it was with the whole human race that God concluded a covenant in the person of Noah, at a time when the nations had none of them come into existence at all.

This is the explanation given by even Jewish commentators; nevertheless, we must not forget that Israel was included among the transgressors, and the choice of expression was determined by this. With the expression “therefore” the prophecy moves on from sin to punishment, just as in Isa 5:25 (cf. , Isa 5:24). אלה is the curse of God denounced against the transgressors of His law (Dan 9:11; compare Jer 23:10, which is founded upon this, and from which אבלה has been introduced into this passage in some codices and editions).

The curse of God devours, for it is fire, and that from within outwards (see Isa 1:31; Isa 5:24; Isa 9:18; Isa 10:16-17; Isa 29:6; Isa 30:27. , Isa 33:11-14): chârū ( milel , since pashta is an acc. postpos. ), from chârar , they are burnt up, exusti . With regard to ויּאשׁמוּ, it is hardly necessary to observe that it cannot be traced back to אשׁם = ישׁם, שׁמם; and that of the two meanings, culpam contrahere and culpam sustinere , it has the latter meaning here.

We must not overlook the genuine mark of Isaiah here in the description of the vanishing away of men down to a small remnant: נשׁאר (שׁאר) is the standing word used to denote this; מזער (used with regard to number both here and in Isa 16:14; and with regard to time in Isa 10:25 and Isa 29:17) is exclusively Isaiah's; and אנושׁ is used in the same sense as in Isa 33:8 (cf. , Isa 13:12).

In Isa 24:7 we are reminded of Joel 1 (on the short sentences, see Isa 29:20; Isa 16:8-10); in Isa 24:8, Isa 24:9 any one acquainted with Isaiah’s style will recall to mind not only Isa 5:12, Isa 5:14, but a multitude of other parallels. We content ourselves with pointing to עלּיז (which belongs exclusively to Isaiah, and is taken from Isa 22:2 and Isa 32:13 in Zep 2:15, and from Isa 13:3 in Zep 3:11); and for basshir (with joyous song) to Isa 30:32 (with the beating of drums and playing of guitars), together with Isa 28:7.

The picture is elegiac, and dwells so long upon the wine (cf. , Isa 16:1-14), just because wine, both as a natural production and in the form of drink, is the most exhilarating to the heart of all the natural gifts of God (Psa 104:15; Jdg 9:13). All the sources of joy and gladness are destroyed; and even if there is much still left of that which ought to give enjoyment, the taste of the men themselves turns it into bitterness.