Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Ezekiel 26:7-14 (ESV)
“For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10  His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11  With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12  They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13  And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14  I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God.

What does verse 14 mean? Does it mean that Tyre will never be rebuilt (i.e. there will never be a city again)? The city of Tyre is still existent today. Was this the implication of the verse or is there something else to be understood from this verse?

share|improve this question

migrated from christianity.stackexchange.com May 14 at 8:28

This question came from our site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more.

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The ancient city-state of Tyre was comprised of the erstwhile island proper (no longer extant) in addition to a cluster of sister cities on the mainland (Ezek 26:6). According to the prophecy of Ezekiel, the city-state would become a place for spreading of fishing nets.

Ezekiel 26:5 (NASB)
She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,’ declares the Lord God, ‘and she will become spoil for the nations.

Ezekiel 26:14 (NASB)
I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken,” declares the Lord God.

The word for Tyre in Hebrew is צֹר, which means rock. Ezekiel indicated that Tyre would be stripped of its glory as the center of international trade and commerce, so that what would be left would be a "bare rock" -- that is, a bare "Tyre" where fishing nets would be spread. In other words, the prophecy was not that the city-state would be uninhabited, but that its glory and fame would never be rebuilt. What the reader must infer is that when fishing nets are spread out, someone necessarily (in this case fishermen) are spreading the fishing nets, since inanimate fishing nets cannot and do not spread themselves out by themselves. So there is no prophecy that the city-state would never be inhabited again, but that the city-state would never be rebuilt (to its former days of glory). Ezekiel prophesied that the Lord would debase the once glorious city-state, whose glory and arrogance were then compared to an erstwhile anointed but arrogant cherub in heaven (Ezek 28:11-19). It is this glory and fame that would never be rebuilt. The glorious rock of Tyre has become a "bare rock" of fisheries, which is the state of the current area and municipality of "Tyre" today. Please click here.

share|improve this answer
2  
I've noticed this in a couple of other posts of yours and should have said something sooner. Please note the difference between extent and extant. You often use the former when you mean the latter (as in your opening sentence here). –  ScottS May 14 at 17:37
1  
I take that as an immanent warning. :) –  Joseph May 14 at 20:27

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.