A live map of reasons and replies

In Ezekiel's prophecy, was Nebuchadnezzar supposed to destroy Island Tyre?

Trace the strongest lines of support, challenge each claim, and follow every response as far as the reasoning goes.

Start with an argument
03 Reasons
supporting
04 Reasons
challenging

Before you begin

Orient yourself to the question

01 Clarifying the question

In Ezekiel 26, the Biblical prophet foretold that the city of Tyre would be destroyed by “many nations”. The city consisted of two parts, an island part and a mainland part. Was Nebuchadnezzar, in verses 6-11, prophesied to destroy the mainland part in particular, leaving the rest of the city to the rest of the many nations ?

02 Debates this question affects

The argument field

Follow a claim. Test its reply.

Open any reason to read its case. Linked claims take you deeper into the tree.

7 arguments at this level

For

Supports this claim

3 reasons

  1. Everyone knew Nebuchadnezzar had no navy

    01 Supporting reason Everyone knew Nebuchadnezzar had no navy Read argument

    Ezekiel, like any of his contemporaries, would have known that Nebuchadnezzar had no navy with which to attack an island. This is relevant because, then no contemporary prophet would choose to prophesy that he would attack the island.

    Copy link

  2. Each of the attacks are blatantly land-specific

    02 Supporting reason Each of the attacks are blatantly land-specific Read argument

    Each of the attacks specifically attributed to Nebuchadnezzar are blatantly land-specific; they are applicable only to the coastal district of Tyre.

    For example, land-specific attacks listed include...

    • “chariots”
    • “siege walls”1
    • “battering rams”
    • “roof of shields”2
    • “wagons”
    • “multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you.”
    • “strong pillars”3

    [Keep in mind that even if Nebuchadnezzar had a navy (which he did not), the walls of insular Tyre hugged the edge of the island in a way that would not even allow battering rams, siege walls, or a roof of shields. That is, unless Ezekiel somehow anticipated the building of a massive mole out to the island, one that in Alexander's day was considered perhaps the greatest war-engineering feat in history. Ezekiel would not have expected this as a way to reach the island.]

    Sources and notes
    1. John Gill: “a fort built of wood, and a mount made of earth, from which stones might be cast out of their engines, and arrows shot from their bows into the city, to the damaging of the houses, and the hurt of the inhabitants” [John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, available online.]
    2. C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch: “signifies the construction of a roof with shields, by which the besiegers were accustomed to defend themselves from the missiles of the defenders of the city wall.” [Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1975), available online.]
    3. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown: “literally, ‘the statutes of thy strength’; so the forts which are ‘monuments of thy strength.’ MAURER understands, in stricter agreement with the literal meaning, ‘the statues’ or ‘obelisks erected in honor of the idols, the tutelary gods of Tyre,’ as Melecarte, answering to the Grecian Hercules, whose temple stood in Old Tyre [my insert: Old Tyre is Coastal Tyre] (compare Jer_43:13, Margin).” [Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871), available online.]
    Copy link

  3. There is a blatant absence of naval attack descriptions

    03 Supporting reason There is a blatant absence of naval attack descriptions Read argument

    In Ezekiel's description of Nebuchadnezzar's attacks, there is a blatant absence of naval representation (no “boats”, “ships”, or the like). This is relevant because the description is rather long, varied, and vivid (see above); had this been a naval siege, the graphical description would have been themed completely differently.

    Sources and notes
    1. See the color-coded prophecy here where the section that is explicitly attributed to “He” (Nebuchadnezzar) is colored blue.
    Copy link

Against

Challenges this claim

4 reasons

  1. “Many nations” just meant Nebuchadnezzar's army

    01 Challenging reason “Many nations” just meant Nebuchadnezzar's army Read argument · 1 path deeper

    In Ezekiel's prophecy on Tyre, the “many nations” which are to entirely destroy Tyre are in fact just Nebuchadnezzar's multi-national army. This matters because Tyre was largely identified with her prestigous island, such that a destruction of Tyre would require a destruction of the island.

    Copy link

  2. It was only island Tyre that was fortified

    02 Challenging reason It was only island Tyre that was fortified Read argument · 2 paths deeper

    Only the Island called Tyre was fortified

    One reason to think this is that:

    This would matter because Nebuchadnezzar's siege on Tyre was prophesied to be an attack on a fortified city.1

    Ezek 26:9 -- “The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.” (c.f v 4. 8, 12)

    Copy link

  3. It said "you" (island) and "your daughters" (coastal)

    03 Challenging reason It said "you" (island) and "your daughters" (coastal) Read argument · 1 path deeper

    Read the prophecy here. The attacks assigned to Nebuchadnezzar (v8b-11) are not just addressed to “your daughters” (the mainland suburbs); in v.8 we see they were also addressed to “you.”1 Importantly, the “you” there is a reference to the island in particular. Therefore, both the coastal suburbs and the island are supposed to come under Nebuchadnezzar's siege.

    Sources and notes
    1. Ezek 26:8 -- “He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you.”
    2. “You” (Tyre [Coastal and Insular]) includes “your daughters” (Coastal-Tyre). If you attack the metaphorical “daughters”, you are attacking a district of Tyre (and thus the entire city of Tyre). Similarly, if you the state of New York (a metaphorical offspring of the United States), you are still attacking the United States. Similarly, see Zechariah 2:6 -- “Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” Here the daughter of Babylon is Babylon.
    3. It is worth noting that, ii one erroneously maintains that the “daughters on the mainland” are entities separate from Tyre, all they would refer to are Tyre's super-suburbs (i.e. those suburbs that are beyond the prime 8-miles of coastal Tyre).
    Copy link

  4. In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel admits his prophecy failed

    04 Challenging reason In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel admits his prophecy failed Read argument · 3 paths deeper

    In Ezekiel 29, the prophet admits that his prophecy failed.

    This page analyzes six evidences.

    This implies that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to have been successful in his attack on Tyre, and yet, the only sense in which Nebuchadnezzar's attack was not successful is that he was not able to attack the island.

    Copy link