Question about 70 yr. excile:

by whyizit 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Leolaia

Not sure what this person meant. They said I must think the Jewish excile occurred before the temple was burned. After also trying to claim there was another king no one knew about until 100 yrs ago (Belshazzar?), they also tried to say the Bible supports 70 yr. excile, but if the fall of Jerusalem happened in 586/7, then that would mean the Jews were exciled for 47 yrs., not 70.
Jews were exiled in 597 BC, long before the destruction of the Temple in 587/6 BC. Ezekiel dates his exile from this date throughout his book, and ch. 25-29 of Jeremiah presume an exile already in progress. It is certainly not an exile that doesn't start until some point later. The MT, which the Society accepts as authoritative (which is not necessarily the oldest form of the text), has the seventy years as a period of servitude for "all the surrounding nations" who "will serve the king of Babylon seventy years". Chapter 25 in the MT version of the text is dated to "the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, that is to say, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" (v. 1), which is when that servitude began for the nations around Judah, and the oracle implies that the period of servitude began around the time the oracle was given: "I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations.... These nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians for their guilt...For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon, king of Judah, until today, the word of Yahweh has been addressed to me and I was persistently spoken to you but you have not listened ... So, this is what Yahweh Sabaoth says: Since you have not listened to my words, I am summoning all the clans of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and bring them against this land and its inhabitants and all these surrounding nations" (v. 3, 8-12).
The pamphlet to the exiles in ch. 27-29 (again in the MT) presumes that the exile was already in progress. At the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, Jeremiah proclaimed this message:
"Send word to the king of Edom, the king of Moab, the king of the Ammonites, the king of Tyre, and the king of Sidon, through their envoys accredited to Zedekiah, king of Judah in Jerusalem... Give them the following message, 'Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this: I by my great power and outstretched arm made the earth, man and the animals that are on the earth. And I can give it to whom I please. For the present, I have handed all these countries over to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, my servant; I have even put the wild animals at his service. All the nations will serve him, to his son, and to his grandson, until the time for his own country comes in its turn, when mighty nations and great kings will enslave him. Any nation or kingdom that will not submit to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and will not bow its neck to the yoke of the king of Babylon, I shall punish with sword, famine, and plague" (v. 3-8).
Clearly, these surrounding nations were already handed over to Nebuchadnezzar by the time of Zedekiah's accession, and they will remain subject to him "to his son, and to his grandson, until the time for his own country comes in its turn, when mighty nations and great kings will enslave him". This is a clear parallel to 25:11-12, where the 70 years corresponds to the three generations mentioned here and the reference to God punishing the king of Babylon in 25:12 corresponds to the enslaving of Babylon by "mighty nations and great kings" here. All of this cannot be reconciled with the Society's interpretation.
Note that this was after the siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, in which the king carried off both Temple vessels and exiles to Babylon (27:18-22). Jeremiah urged King Zedekiah to "bend your necks to the yoke of the king of Babylon, submit to him and to his people and you will live" (v. 12). Meanwhile, the false prophet Hananiah declared that Yahweh "has broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. In two years' time I will bring back all the vessels of the Temple of Yahweh which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon carried off from this place to Babylon. And I will also bring back Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and all the exiles of Judah who have gone to Babylon" (28:3-4). Again, the period of servitude, the time when "these nations serve the king of Babylon for seventy years" (25:11), had already begun, for God says that "I have handed all these countries over the Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon ... all the nations will serve him, to his son, and to his grandson until the time for his own country comes in its turn".
Finally, ch. 29 includes the text of a letter that Jeremiah sent to the exiles already sent to Babylon, and he encourages them to settle down there, to take wives and have sons and daughters and then find wives for their sons (thereby indicating the passage of generations), for they were not going home anytime soon: "Only when the seventy years for Babylon are over, will I visit you and fulfill my promise in your favor by bringing you back to this place" (v. 10). Here Jeremiah refers to the seventy years as a period of time that Yahweh granted to Babylon, the time when "all the nations will serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, to his son and to his grandson" (cf. 27:7). Notice, again, that in 29:10 the 70 years do not lie in the future, for they are not waiting for the 70 years to begin but for them to be completed. The Watchtower interpretation again goes against the context.
Billy the Ex-Bethelite

That's an excellent and well documented explanation Leo, but can you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed invisibly in 607 BCE? Hmmm?
That pivital historic event could only be seen by "celebrated JW scholars" using their special "evidence-ignoring pyramidscopic glasses"!
Put a pair of these babies on and you'll never be bothered by "pesky facts" again!
AnnOMaly

Hi Narkissos,
Again you've given some food for thought and I see what you're saying about the terminus a quo. However, the bigger picture has to be taken into account. Wouldn't the Chronicler know that Jehoiakim had been Nebuchadnezzar's servant - albeit a rebellious one - and Jehoiachin and a vast entourage were already his servants before Jerusalem's ruin? Accordingly, the prophesied 70 year servitude to Babylon (at the mouth of Jeremiah) was already underway. (I've just seen that Leolaia posted in a similar vein.)
This knowledge sets the backdrop for 2 Chron. 36:11ff and Zedekiah's and his supporters' behavior, their refusal to serve Nebuchadnezzar at Jeremiah's behest (cf. Jer. 27). After cataloguing the sequence of events, the writer says, "And they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia in order to fulfill the word of the LORD in the mouth of Jeremiah ... to fulfill (or complete) 70 years." All this does is give the impression God's will and Jeremiah's prophecy won out in the end, rather than providing a terminus a quo for the 70 years. If the writer really wanted to give the impression the land enjoyed it's sabbaths and rested for 70 years, he could quite easily have said something like, "it kept sabbath all the 70 years for Babylon."
It also shows the Chronicler was familiar with the version of Jeremiah that contained the words at Jer. 27:7 (omitted in the LXX version at ch.34) which in turn would make it likely he knew exactly what the 70 years referred to - especially with Jer. 29:10 (36:10 LXX). With that being so, I agree with Winkle when he says, "while the Chronicler has injected a new theological issue into the seventy-year prophecy (i-e., the sabbath rest of the land), he does not seem to have radically changed the meaning of Jeremiah's prophecy."
Narkissos

AnnO'Maly,
OK, I googled about Ross E. Winkle and I'm starting to understand his (Adventist) perspective a little better. I even found the article you quoted from for broader context: http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=755&journal=1&type=pdf
Needless to say I don't share his confessional interest in having the "70 years of Jeremiah" constitute an exact and constant chronological reference. This induces a difference in methodology. Winkle tries to show that 2 Chronicles 36 can be read with such a reference in mind -- or, iow, that it doesn't need to be read otherwise. This puts some strain of his reading of 2 Chronicles. He starts with the analysis of Jeremiah, naturally favours a chronologically exact interpretation of the 70 years (starting from 609) rather than an approximate one (starting from 605 for instance), and then asks whether the text Chronicles is compatible with his analysis of Jeremiah. Assuming that he makes his point, he comes up with a possible interpretation of Chronicles. Which is not necessarily the most natural one when the text of Chronicles is read for itself.
Again, I don't question the Chroniclers' understanding of his sources (although I consider Jeremiah's use of the 70 year motif less than clear, especially in 25:11f, and certainly less clear than Winkle's). But the Chronicler is first of all a rewriter, who deliberately alters (by omission, addition and transformation) the original meaning of his sources (which he probably did not expect to side along with his own work in some canon, but attempted to replace, at least in the case of Samuel-Kings) according to his own ideological agenda. So if we allow the exegesis of his sources to dominate the exegesis of his work, we are, in effect, undoing his work (as far as he doesn't make it impossible).
What impression does the reader / hearer (call him "superficial" if you wish) of Chronicles, who has no other element at hand (as the Chronicler most likely expected), get about the 70 years? This imo is the only question that really matters to the exegesis of Chronicles. Comparison with the sources that happened to remain available gives us an insight on what may have happened in the Chronicles' kitchen and his ideology. But that doesn't change anything to the dish he served to his guests.
From the guests' position, I understand Jeremiah prophesied a 70-year rest of the land and that was fulfilled by the exile. Only if I have been in the kitchen can I know a slice of Leviticus was mixed with the original Jeremiah to produce this new version of "the prophecy of Jeremiah".
But, as the saying goes, let's agree to disagree... :)
scholar

AnnOMaly
Post 990
There is nothing in the opening verses of Daniel 1 that show that the first deportation of Jews began the seventy years but simply refers to an earlier exile some years before the major exile of the entire population when Jerusalem was destroyed. The facts of that latter exile fit the prophetic account of what the seventy year period would mean for Judah and Jerusalem. That seventy year period was one of exile, desolation of the land and servitude to Babylon whilst under Babylonish domination.
The hypothesis that there are several 'seventy year' periods simply makes no sense biblically or historically and does not find support with the testimony of Josephus who only referred to one definite period of seventy years.
scholar JW
Billy the Ex-Bethelite

Yeah, like Josephus wants to be associated with a bunch of pyramidologists and their rewriting of history.
Solomon's temple destroyed 586; temple rebuilt 516; there's another 70 years.
There are 70 years all over the place.
If you're going to go with the 607-537 as THE only seventy years ever, you're gonna need a pair of these special "evidence-ignoring pyramidscopic glasses"!
Insert years here, remove facts there, and voila! You are now a "celebrated JW scholar"!
scholar

AnnOMaly
Post 991
2 Chron. 36;21 is precise in stating that the foretold seventy years was a precise period of desolation with the land paying off the sabbaths. The language of this verse is unambiguous and cannot be interpreted in any other way. Josephus in his many references to the seventy years agrees with this literal interpretation of the subject - seventy years.
There is absolutely no evidence for multiple 'seventy year periods but is simply an hypothesis of modern 'armchair' higher critics who have no belief or inmterest in prophecy. The historic fulfillment of the seventy years on Judah during the time of Babylonian hegemony fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah.
The only erroneous conclusion is drawn from apostates who believe that the seventy years represents Babylonian domination and ignore the very obvious that it was a definite historic period of desolation-serviude-exile of JUDAH from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.
scholar JW
AllTimeJeff

*knock knock on the tin headed one...*
(fake) scholar
That verse mentions 70 years. Thats it. It doesn't give a reference starting point. Conveniently, you don't either (fake) scholar. Although this verse does reveal one peculiarity about the bible: Without the real chronology that was kept by the Babylonians, Egyptians, etc, it would be impossible to tell the years at all.
Ever wonder why from the JW point of view, "Jehovah" gave prophecy that JW's cling to, but the pagan nations that "Jehovah" wanted to destroy for among other things, their astrology (worship of the stars) are the only records that could possibly pinpoint the years that JW's use?
In other words, without the "false" worship that has been preserved by their false prophet astrologers, 1914 would not exist.
I'm just sayin..........
(2 Chronicles 36:17-21) 17 So he brought up against them the king of the Chal·de´ans, who proceeded to kill their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, neither did he feel compassion for young man or virgin, old or decrepit. Everything He gave into his hand. 18 And all the utensils, great and small, of the house of the [true] God and the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king and of his princes, everything he brought to Babylon. 19 And he proceeded to burn the house of the [true] God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and also all its desirable articles, so as to cause ruin. 20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
There's nothing here that says 1914 (fake) scholar, but another verse that says 70 years. Thats it....
scholar

AllTime Jeff
Post 1775
Yes it does because the reference for the beginning of the seventy years is the fact that it the land 'lay desolate ' so it is simply a matter of determining what event in biblical history caused the land to be desolate and the only event was the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
The Jews had a chronology that was independent and far more reliable than that of the Babylonians and the Egyptians because it was complete and had no gaps in its history thus the prophecies were anchored in biblical history pointing forward to that momentous year 1914 CE.
The year 1914 CE is firmly based on the foundation of history, chronology and prophecy and has withstood the attacks of apostates and modern critics.
scholar JW
Doug Mason

Hi Scholar,
Two questions:
1. Why do you say that the people writing on this thread are resorting to Higher Criticism? It seems to me that much of it is Lower Criticism. Am I to take it that you have objection to the former? Or that you have no objection to the latter? Don't the WTS "Scholars" employ Higher Criticism, even in its very latest publication? What's wrong with it?
2. Let's say just for one moment that there was a period of 70 years of total depopulation (which I do not assent to, but let's just leave that aside, please). If the return of Jews to the temple site marked the ending of that period (again, not a position I agree with), how is that date determined as definitely being 537 BCE? And how is that date determined without recourse to absolute reliance on non-Biblical sources? Where does the Scripture say that this was the event that marked the conclusion of the 70 years? Or is that a position determined by inference?
Alright, so there are more than two questions. I got carried away.
Doug

Question about 70 yr. excile:

Share this