Is it admitted in Ezekiel 29 that the Tyre prophecy failed?

  • Clarifying the question

    In Ezekiel 26, a prophecy is articulated whereby the city of Tyre was to be destroyed. But later we read:

    Ezekiel 29:17-19 -- “Nebuchadnezzar… made his army labor hard against Tyre… But he and his army had no wages…" Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar… he will carry off her wealth.”

    Is it being admitted here that Ezekiel's prophecy failed? If so, this would play an important role in the question of whether Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled.

    1. Some critics think so. For example:
      • Richard Carrier (Activist atheist, Classicist): “...forcing Ezekiel to retract his prediction”
      • Farrell Till (Publisher of The Skeptical Review journal): “…if Yahweh had intended for Nebuchadnezzar to defeat only the mainland area, then it would not be true that he had received no pay for the labor he expended. In reality, he would have gotten exactly what Yahweh wanted him to have... the mainland villages of Tyre.” [“The Tyre Prophecy Again” in The Skeptical Review (1999)]
“No, after all…

  • Ezekiel (& his book) would've been rejected as false

    As ordered by divine law (Dt 18:21-22), if the Hebrews perceived Ezekiel's prophecy to have failed or for Ezekiel to have received revelation of God to admitting a failure, then Ezekiel would sooner have lost his title as prophet and his book would obviously have had a very hard time being canonized.

“Yes, after all…

  • Tyre was to be a spoil for the nations

    In the prophecy, it said “she will become spoil for the nations.” (Ezekiel 26:5) This is relevant because Nebuchadnezzar did not receive any such spoils (Ezekiel 29:20).

    But so what? Tyre being prophesied to become the “spoil of the nations” does not require that every nation get her spoils. Tyre has in every way become the “spoil of the nations” without Nebuchadnezzar being one of said nations. The nations attacking with Alexander received spoils in excess.

  • God's reward to Nebuchadnezzar is recompense

    God's rewarding Nebuchadnezzar is in fact God's paying Nebuchadnezzar back. This is relevant because God would not be paying Nebuchadnezzar back unless the original promise to Nebuchadnezzar (i.e. Tyre's spoils) was not actually delivered as promised (in the prophecy itself).

    But no,

    • Prophecying that Nebuchadnezzar would receive spoils (which never happened) is not a promise to Nebuchadnezzar.
    • It is likewise false that God's rewarding someone implies that a reward was originally promised them. There is no indication in the text to suggest that God's decision to gracefully reward Nebuchadnezzar stemmed out of a failure of the prophecy.
    • Instead, the motivation was explicitly different: “I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor which he performed, because they acted for Me” (29:20)