Ezekiel 26:3-13 and the Fall of Tyre

Okay, I generally don't post in the inerrancy threads because my archeology knowledge is waaaay down at the shallow end of the knowledge pool. In addition, real life has intervened lately, cutting down my posting time significantly.In this case, however, I actually have a question, rather than an argument. I ran across an article in Military History magazine concerning Nebuchadnezzar and the seige of Tyre. (Scott Smith, "Nebuchadnezzar's military achievements made his name - and that of his native Babylon - legend.", December 2003 issue). Now MH is not my favorite military history magazine, primarily because the articles and essays rarely if ever provide any references, so I'm looking for some comments or references from the EvCforum peanut gallery on the validity of the MH article.In a nutshell, Scott mentions the 585 BCE start of the Babylonian seige of Tyre. He discusses the inability of Nebuchadnezzar to effect a complete envelopment due to Tyre being partitioned into two cities - one of which was on an island some 700 meters off shore. Without a navy to conduct a blockade, the seige settled into a 13-year-long stalemate, after which the Tyrians and Babylonians cut a deal that allowed Nebuchadnezzar to declare victory and take his army home. This bit seems to be fairly accurate, as the failed seige is well-documented in other works (see, for example, Dupuy and Dupuy, 1993 "Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 BC to the Present", Harper Collins, pg 13).However, Scott mentions Ezekiel 16:3-13 - apparently Ezekiel (who had evidently been captured by the Babylonians during the invasion of Judea in 597 BCE) foretold that Tyre would fall to the Babylonians. Since Tyre would not fall until 332 BC (after a 7-month siege by Alexander III of Macedon), Ezekiel apparently got it wrong.My question: Is it true that Ezekiel prophecied the fall of Tyre? And if so, does this constitute a(nother) failed prophecy? If not, how is the biblical account squared with the historical account?

The short answer is yes, Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would fall, yes it is a failed prophecy and the usual excuse is to insist that Ezekiel was talking about Alexander. Even though Nebuchadnezzar is named as the conqueror.For some strange reason this is frequently used as an example of a successful prophecy.

hey, this is my first post on evc.I've had very lengthy debates about the Tyre prophecy.Ezekiel did predict that Tyre would fall, yadda yadda yadda, as you already know. God said that Tyre would be laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar.However, Ezekiel recants his prophecy by saying:In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored, because they worked for me, says the Lord GOD (Ezek. 29:17-20).So he says that he would give Nebuchadnezzar egypt due to that failure. That egypt would turn into a desolate waste for 40 years, and no one would inhabit it during that time. Ezekiel 29:7-17" 'You have been a staff of reed for the house of Israel. 7 When they grasped you with their hands, you splintered and you tore open their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you broke and their backs were wrenched. [1]
8 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD .
" 'Because you said, "The Nile is mine; I made it," 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. [2] 11 No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.
13 " 'Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the nations where they were scattered. 14 I will bring them back from captivity and return them to Upper Egypt, [3] the land of their ancestry. There they will be a lowly kingdom. 15 It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations. 16 Egypt will no longer be a source of confidence for the people of Israel but will be a reminder of their sin in turning to her for help. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD .' "Of course we know this to not be true, so in effect, that prophecy is wrong, and the tyre prophecy is admittedly wrong.*edited to include egypt prophecy[This message has been edited by cloud_strife, 01-29-2004]

Hmmm...Ezekiel refers to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre as a completed act in Ez 29:17-20. Meaning the book of Ezekiel could not have been completed until after the siege of Tyre was over? And he was a prophet, was he? I think I am beginning to understand how this Bible prophecy thing works!

Hey Paul,Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected. However, I hadn't realized that the prophecy is considered "fulfilled" by some literalists. How do they rationalize this? After all, Nebuchadnezzar != Alexander, and the passage is pretty specific.

Thanks for the reply, and welcome to EvCForum!If I'm reading you right, later on in Ezekiel he claims that God will wreck Egypt as a booby prize to Nebuchadnezzar for failing to take Tyre? That's really bizarre. Egypt had been going into the toilet since at least the end of Ramses III's reign. Let's see, just off the top of my head: Ethopians around 730, Assyrians around 670, and Nebuchadnezzar hisownself around 605 (Battle of Carchemish where Necho got his clock cleaned and finally lost Palestine definitively). IOW, the place was going to pot well before Ezekiel supposedly wrote his prophecy, and had been for a several hundred years at least.Maybe it was another example of wishful thinking and sour grapes? I mean, just before he got creamed by the Babylonians, Necho wiped out a Jewish army under Josiah in Palestine, yes? So the Jews weren't really happy with Egypt within living memory of Ezekiel (assuming the dates are right). I may be extrapolating from modern political propaganda, but it seems like a logical extension.

I have no idea when the book of Ezekiel was supposedly written. However, the historical(?) figure of Ezekiel was one of the Judean leaders collected up in a bunch by Nebuchadnezzar around 590 or so and exiled to Babylon. So he was in captivity (actually, hostage is a better word, the crowd included a lot of Jewish writers, artisans, etc, and the captivity wasn't exactly durance vile apparently - more to prevent another rebellion) during the seige.

If I remember correctly there is a switch from talking abouit Nebuchadnezzar personally to talking about his soldiers. This is taken as meaning a switch to a completely different group of people.Of course there are Christians who can see through this
Error 404 - Not FoundHere is one of the sites recommended by Kendermere [hope I remembered the spelling !]
http://tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_03.htm

quote:

---

Ezekiel 26 and the Tyre prophecy is a flagship prooftext for those who claim divine inspiration for the Scriptures

---

Yes, a clear failure is one of the best examples of fulfilled prophecy !

Thanks for the refs. Still, even if the literalists pull a semantic fast one and claim the prophecy is only about the troops, rather than the leadership, I don't see how they get from talking about Chaldean derivative Babylonians to Macedonians... I mean, even tho' Alexander conquered the Levant, there is no indication that any of his 40,000 Macedonian and Greek troops at the time had any contingents from Babylon (or anywhere in that area, which was Persian at the time IIRC). I guess that's why I'll never understand fundies.Edited to add: The second reference has a major flaw, where the author states I'm sorry, thanks for playing. Nebuchadnezzar not only failed to take the island half of the city, but was utterly unable to breach the land walls either. Those walls stood until Alexander.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-31-2004]