Contending, as the Jew does, that no part of the prophecy relating to the
Messiah’s kingdom, has yet been accomplished, he cannot reasonably be
expected to offer a particular interpretation of what, according to his
view, is still unfulfilled. And, accordingly, his remarks on this chapter
are restricted to an occasional correction of the received translation,
and a few short explanatory notes; while his reply to my exposition, if
reply it can be called, may be comprised in one short sentence, namely,
that he considers the whole unaccomplished, and rejects altogether the
spiritual exposition, admitting none but the literal.
In answer to this, I have to observe, that the literal acceptation, has
already, in some instances, been shewn to be impossible; and will,
hereafter, be so in many more; while the figurative exposition offered, is
in perfect accordance with the style and language of prophecy in general,
and is uniform and consistent throughout.
As I fully acquiesce in the Rabbi’s corrections, and in the only instance
where we differ, have adopted his view in preference to my own, it is
wholly unnecessary to offer his translation at length; but an objection
which he makes to my exposition of verses 3rd and 4th of the last chapter,
I feel called upon to notice.
In those verses, I adopted the view of Dr. Blayney, that the destruction
_by fire_, there denounced, applies to Sidon rather than to Tyre.
The common version, “_For Tyre has built herself a fortress_,” being
rendered by him, “_For she_ (Sidon) _has built herself a fortress, Tyre_;”
the Sidonians being thus made the immediate object of denunciation, who
are allowed to have been the builders of Tyre, which was thence called the
daughter of Sidon.
Now the Jew’s objection is founded upon collateral prophecies, in which
the burden cannot, as here, be shifted from Tyre to Sidon, the former
being distinctly named in these; and in some, the precise mode of
destruction specified, namely, by fire: Thus, in Amos i. 10, “_I will send
a fire upon the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof:_”
see also Isa. xxiii., in which the whole burden is expressly on Tyre; and
again, Ezek. xxvii. 32, “_and in their wailing, they shall take up a
lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like
Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?_”
These, and similar passages, would, no doubt, be fatal to the exposition
of Dr. Blayney, could they be shewn to foretel one and the same event; but
against this, there are, what appear to me, conclusive objections. Two of
these prophets not only wrote long before the time of Zechariah, but
before the destruction of Old Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, which was therefore
most likely to be the object of their predictions, and not New Tyre,
which, at that time was not in existence, being built after Old Tyre was
demolished; this then appears conclusive against the objection drawn from
what occurs in Amos and Isaiah. With regard to Ezekiel, the case is
somewhat different, and the answer must rest on other grounds.
Ezekiel did write much nearer to the time in question, and commentators
appear undecided whether some of his predictions refer to the destruction
of Old or New Tyre, or to both; for if he uttered this prophecy before the
siege of Old Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, which can hardly admit of doubt, when
he says, chap. xxvi. 7, “Behold I will bring upon Tyrus, Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon;” still the expression of “_the destroyed in the midst of
the sea_,” does seem peculiarly applicable to the insular situation of New
Tyre. But if it be granted that the siege of this latter, by Alexander, be
intimated in that remarkable expression; yet Ezekiel no where, that I can
find, specifies _fire_ as the peculiar agent of destruction; therefore, it
cannot be inferred from any thing he says, that in Zechariah’s prophecy,
which appears to be directed against both Tyre and Sidon, this particular
mode of destruction may not apply to Sidon, as the text certainly warrants
that interpretation. Thus I see no reason to relinquish Dr. Blayney’s
view, which I should give up with the more reluctance, as I have so rarely
been able to go along with that learned commentator; while this exposition
appeared to me a very happy solution of a difficulty presented by the
received translation.