Problem: According to the prophecies in Ezekiel 26, God would bring Nebuchadnezzar against the proud city of Tyre and would utterly destroy it. However,Ezekiel 29:18indicates that Nebuchadnezzar failed to capture Tyre. How can these two statements be reconciled?

Solution: Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the coastal cities. However, the people of the port of Tyre had obviously relocated to the island city, which they were able to successfully defend against the Babylonian invaders. Nebuchadnezzar had defeated and plundered the cities on the shore, as Ezekiel prophesied in26:7–11, but he could not defeat the island city. This fact is reported inEzekiel 29:18.

Further, verse12marks a shift from the prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzar to prophetic declarations about other invaders. Verse3had already introduced the idea of many invaders in the statement, “I ... will cause many nations to come up against you.” As history records, many nations did come up against the island city of Tyre, but it was Alexander the Great, laying siege against the island city of Tyre in about 332b.c., who finally conquered the city and left it in total ruins so that it was never rebuilt. When rightly understood, Ezekiel’s prophecy perfectly fits the historical record.