O Inhabitants of the Coast

Imagine an affluent city named Ty, set along the coast. After years of transporting an abundance of wealth to neighboring coastlands, Ty is laid waste. Ruined. Bare. Gone.


Many a coastal town benefited from the wealth and trade of Ty. Many a coastal town is now at a great loss . . .

Tar is miles across the sea, so it suffers most. There is great mourning in Tar. From where might their goods come, now that Ty is no more? If there ever were a needy coastland . . .

Cy, on the other hand, has little need to worry {be still, O inhabitants of the coast}. Cy is an island, within reasonable distance from many neighboring towns of trade.

Sid is one such trading town which will provide for Cy. You see, Sid has the resources and ability to cross over great waters. Yes, the sea has its dangers and its hurdles, but the sea does what it does. Sid has the opportunity, at least, to cross those forbidden waters and deal business with many needy coastlands.

Needy coastlands. Did you just say “needy coastlands”? Shame on you, Sid. How could you possibly boast of such strength and not reach out to Tar, the neediest of them all?

But then Cy would suffer and go into mourning {wail, O inhabitants of the coast}, because your ships have gone elsewhere. Good point.

What a mess. If only Ty hadn’t been stripped to the point of being forgotten. If only that great and mighty stronghold of a city, that prideful land full of prince-like merchants, hadn’t been brought low.

But who would do this? Who would, in effect, take these kingdoms in his fist and shake them?

The Lord of hosts, of course. Because he can’t let anybody take his glory.

Crazy story? Read Isaiah 23 and see if you find a more logical interpretation. Surely there is one.

 [image credits: pixabay.com,  journeyoftheword.com]

8 thoughts on “O Inhabitants of the Coast

  1. I went back and read the Amplified version. It seems pretty good at amplifying meanings hehe. I don’t know if it’s right here, but it seems to make sense too.


    1. Interesting. Remind me – does the Amplified Version simply combine lots of translations? Or is it its own translation full of synonyms or something? It’s been a long time since I looked at it. I prefer to stick with reliable translations of the text itself rather than paraphrases or study helps, so I was just curious. Maybe I’ll check it out!

      As for Isaiah 23, I’ve been trying to work through it with a friend, and seriously… I rewrote this post like three times before I posted it. And I still don’t think I’ve found the proper interpretation.


      1. Checked the Wiki about it and here’s a quote:


        “The Amplified Bible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice. It is a translation from the accepted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts into literary English. It is based on the American Standard Version of 1901, Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament as well as the best Hebrew and Greek lexicons available at the time. Cognate languages, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Greek works were also consulted. The Septuagint and other versions were compared for interpretation of textual differences. In completing the Amplified Bible, translators made a determined effort to keep, as far as possible, the familiar wording of the earlier versions, and especially the feeling of the ancient Book.”


  2. Very interesting! This alone could be a plot for a movie! Thanks for sharing your insight with #SocialButterflySunday! Hope to see you link up again this week 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s