reprint from the Mar/Jun 1988 Bethel Ministries Newsletter
THE GENTILE TIMES
`Appointed Times of the Nations'
607 BCE to 1914 CE?
by Ed Schnopp
It has been said concerning the Bible, that `you can make it say anything you want.' If by that statement, it means that by weaving one's way through isolated verses, making arbitrary cross-references, and by using one of many possible definitions for a particular word without giving attention to the context of that word, then yes, the Bible can be twisted to conform to almost any pre-conceived notion or teaching. There are many examples of those who have taken a few Scriptures out of their context and, by adding convoluted logic, have formed some rather strange doctrines. This is the case with the Watchtower Society's (WTS') explanation stemming from Luke 21:24, which reads, "and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." (NWT) What might be noticed first is the WT's rendering of ethnos as nations. Granted, one of the definitions of ethnos is `nations,' but a better translation would be `Gentiles' (nonJews). Israel is also a nation, yet is excluded from `the nations' of Luke 21:24.
Assembling the Doctrine
According to the Watchtower Society, the `trampling of Jerusalem' refers not to the literal city, but to that which Jerusalem represented the typical kingdom of God operating through the kings of the line of David. They say the `trampling' of that Davidic dynasty began centuries earlier with the overthrow of Jerusalem in 607 BCE [1] by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. As they explain it, "With Jerusalem's fall in 607 BCE the Gentile powers exercised dominion over the entire earth. The Davidic dynasty and rule suffered interruption and so Jerusalem or what it stood for would continue to be `trampled on' as long as God's kingdom, as functioning through David's house, was kept in a low inoperative condition under the Gentile powers." (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1969, p. 95) This domination continued until 1914 CE when, as the WT says, Christ was enthroned in heaven, and took dominion of the earth away from the nations. How the WT arrived at this is a study in bizarre Scriptural interpretation. After saying that the "Jerusalem" of Luke 21:24 actually means the Jewish kingdom of David's line, they cross-reference Luke's account with Matthew 24, there noting that verse 15 refers the reader to the book of Daniel. Matthew 24:15 doesn't say what part of Daniel's books, so the WT begins with the great image of Daniel chapter 2, which represents the order of world powers, beginning with the Babylonian Empire. They then `connect' this to the vision of Daniel 4, of a tree that is chopped down, and has "seven times" pass over the banded stump. [2]
The WT, however, takes it upon itself to give the vision/dream a further interpretation. In the Aid book (p. 95) it states,
The vision definitely had a fulfillment in Nebuchadnezzar himself. (See Daniel 4:31-35.) Therefore, some view it as having direct prophetic application only to him....Yet, an examination of the entire book of Daniel reveals that the element of time is everywhere prominent in the visions and prophecies it presents....Additionally, the book repeatedly points forward toward the conclusion that forms the theme of its prophecies: the establishment of a universal and eternal Kingdom of God....
In view of the above, it does not seem logical to evaluate the vision of the symbolic "tree" and its reference to "seven times" as having no other application....
The Watchtower thereby links the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to "the appointed times of the nations" of Luke 21:24. God's sovereignty, as represented by the Davidic dynasty, would be interrupted for a period of "seven times." To arrive at a definition of these "seven times," the WT turns to Revelation 12:6, 14. Since verse 6 has "the woman in the wilderness" for 1,260 days, and verse 14 has "the woman in the wilderness" for "a time, times, and half a time" (3 1/2 times), each `time' is determined to be 360 days; hence, 7 times would be 2,520 days. Next they apply the unrelated formula of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, "a day for a year," and translate the 2,520 days of the calculations into 2,520 years. Thus the "appointed times of the nations" becomes 2,520 years. The WT begins this count of time from when Nebuchadnezzar overthrew Jerusalem, which the Watchtower states is 607 BCE. Finally they count forward to 1914 CE to arrive at the time when the lease of Gentile domination expired, and the Davidic Kingdom was to be re-established.
An Examination of the Facts
Is there any merit to the WT's reckoning of time? Let's start at the focal point, 607 BC. The WT places the desolating overthrow of Jerusalem in that year, and they do so primarily on the basis of the 70-year prophecy of Jeremiah 25:10-12 and 29:10. This 70-year prophecy, according to the WT, refers to the period of time the Jews were held in captivity by Babylonia, beginning with Jerusalem's fall. Since the Jews were freed in 537 BC (historically correct), the WT simply counted backward 70 years and arrived at 607 BCE as the year Jerusalem was overthrown. Actually, the 70-year prophecy of Jeremiah is not to be applied in this way, which will be explained later. Let's concern ourselves for the moment with 607 BCE, which disagrees with the scholarly accepted date of 587/586 BCE as the time of Jerusalem's fall.
The WT denies and ignores the following secular evidence against the 607 BCE date: In the 3rd century BCE, a Babylonian priest named Berossus wrote a history of Babylonia which dealt with the lengths of reigns of kings during the Neo-Babylonian period (Nabonassar to Nabonidus). Another historian, astronomer, and writer, Claudius Ptolemy (70-161 CE), put together his listing of kings and dates of reign of the same period. The WT dismisses as inaccurate the writings of these two ancient historians by quoting the words of a Professor Olmstead: "...only the merest fragments, abstracts, or traces, have come down to us" and that "Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of an Armenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who borrowed in part from Alexander Polyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct, in part from Abydenus who apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor and so from Berossus." (Aid, p. 328). While we do not have to consult a Latin translation (the Armenian translation is still preserved), admittedly the rest of what the WT said is true, and does cast some doubt upon the accuracy of the copiers. However, we will see this doubt erased as we go on. Ptolemy, says the WT, "is thought to have used the writings of Berossus." (Aid, p. 328) However, scholars believe Ptolemy's canon was written independent of Berossus, because of the order and forms of the kings names. (see The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Olof Jonsson, 1983, p. 42). The WT does concede, however, that "even though [modern historians generally credit Ptolemy with accuracy] and even though the reigns of the Kings of Babylon and Persia as set forth in Ptolemy's canon may be basically correct, there seems to be no reason for holding that the canon is necessarily accurate in every respect or for all periods." (Aid, p. 327) The WT's ambiguity here betrays their lack of confidence. In actuality, there are many reasons why we should accept Ptolemy's canon, especially for the Neo-Babylonian era.
Both Berossus and Ptolemy are in almost complete agreement with regard to the succession of kings and their lengths of reign during that era. The only difference is that Berossus lists the 5th king, Labashi-Marduk, and Ptolemy doesn't. The reason is that this king reigned less than a year, and Ptolemy dealt only in whole years. The table of reigns is:
Table of Reigns
Name of King |
Berossus |
Ptolemy |
BCE |
Nabopolassar |
21 years |
21 years |
625-605 |
Nebuchadnezzar |
43 years |
43 years |
604-562 |
Evilmerodach |
2 years |
2 years |
561-560 |
Neriglissar |
4 years |
4 years |
559-556 |
Labashi-Marduk |
9 months |
n/a |
556 |
Nabonidus |
17 years |
17 years |
555-539 |
As you can see, both historians have listed Nebuchadnezzar's first year as 604, three years after the 607 date the WT ascribes to him. So now, the question is, Can these king lists be corroborated by any other known sources?
Several Lines of Evidence
In the Aid book, p. 327, the WT deceptively states: "...Babylonian historical records that could either substantiate or undermine Ptolemy's figures for the lengths of reigns of certain kings are largely lacking." Perhaps for the `certain kings' of Persia, but not for the Neo-Babylonian period! Actually, seven lines of evidence can be given to support both Berossus and Ptolemy. These have come from cuneiform clay tablets which have been unearthed during the last 100 years. The first of these is the Babylonian Chronicles which are all kept in the British Museum in London. Though these Chronicles are incomplete for the entire Neo-Babylonian period, they do provide support for a portion of Berossus' and Ptolemy's lists. The second line of evidence is the Uruk King List, unearthed during an excavation campaign in 1959/60. Portions of it are eaten away, but what is still preserved agrees with Berossus' and Ptolemy's lengths of reigns of the first two kings, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar.
The third and fourth lines of evidence are the preserved Royal Inscriptions of Nabonidus. One, designated Nabon. No. 8, helps to establish the whole Neo-Babylonian era, since it states that from the 16th year of Nabopolassar to the accession year of Nabonidus was a period of 54 years (in complete agreement with Berossus and Ptolemy). The other Royal Inscription, Nabon. H 1 B, gives the lengths of all the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings up to the 9th year of Nabonidus (except for Labashi-Marduk, whose short reign is ignored). The figures given are again in complete harmony with Berossus and Ptolemy.
The fifth line of evidence, which is very decisive, is the thousands of business document texts that have come down to us from that period. There are dated tablets in existence from every year during the whole era. The records of a banking house centered in Babylon, the house of "The Sons of Egibi," verify each year of every king's reign during the period. This aligns exactly with Berossus, Ptolemy, the Chronicles, and the Royal records. Sixth, there are the preserved documents of Babylonian astronomers, termed "Astronomical Diaries." These have been designated VAT 4956 (kept in the Berlin Museum) and B.M. 32312. They contain dated astronomical positions which are not duplicated in the heavens for thousands of years, thus pinpointing with precise accuracy Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth regnal year (in which he conquered Jerusalem--Jer. 52:12) as 587/586 BCE. Seventh and last are the synchronic links provided by comparing the chronology of Egypt to that of Babylon. There are at least four such dated connecting links, giving excellent proof of the correctness of Berossus' and Ptolemy's king-lists. (For a study on these seven lines of evidence, see The Gentile Times Reconsidered.)
The historical date proven as 587/586 for the overthrow of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in his 18th year of reign is thus confirmed by at least seven lines of secular evidence in addition to Berossus and Ptolemy. The 607 date of the WT leaves a gap of 20 years, which is unaccounted for in any record of that period. Assume for the moment that Berossus' figures contain an error of 20 years, as required by the WT. This would mean that 400 years after Berossus, and independent of him, Ptolemy made the same 20 year error. It would also mean that the sources of the Babylonian Chronicles, the Royal Inscriptions, and the banking business documents, in turn, made the same 20-year mistake. Is it really likely that the scribes and businessmen who wrote during the Neo-Babylonian era did not know the lengths of the reigns of the Kings under whom they lived? If such a thing could be found likely, could it also be possible that contemporary scribes in Egypt would have made the same error? Then too, the Babylonian astronomers would have had to make a similar mistake in their diaries. This kind of irrational thinking does not `stretch' the imagination--it snaps it in two! Still more incredible is the idea that scribes and astronomers could work in collusion to remove any reference to a 20-year period in this era. On top of all this would be a fantastic coincidence that of all the thousands of dated documents for the Neo-Babylonian period, covering every year of that period, not one single tablet has been found for the missing 20 years. Could it be that there was an international `coverup' of these 20 years? If there were, then it was so successful that in all the thousands of unearthed documents, nary a word is mentioned indicating that such a 20 year period ever existed. To suggest such a thing would be preposterous, and so we are led forcefully to the conclusion that the WT's chronology is in error.
The Seventy Years
What about the 70-year prophecy dating back from 537 BCE to 607 BCE? Since the date 537 BCE is historically valid, it would seem that a count backwards of 70 years to 607 BCE is only logical in order to determine the date for Jerusalem's destruction. However, it will be shown that there are actually two seventy year periods mentioned relating to Israel. Out of seven passages citing a period of seventy years, only five have application to the 70 years of servitude to Babylon. This prophecy, as alluded to earlier, is given in Jeremiah:
"And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
"And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation," is the utternace of Jehovah, "their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite." Jeremiah 25:10-12, NWT
For this is what Jehovah has said, "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place." Jeremiah 29:10, NWT
Because Jer. 25:11 says "this land must become a devastated place," the WT assumes this prophecy had its fulfillment beginning at Jerusalem's capture, which is incorrect. What has escaped their notice is that this prophecy does not just pertain to the land of Judah, for it says "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years," or according to verse 9, "against this land [Judah]...and against all these nations round about...." This prophecy included not just Judah, but all surrounding nations. The WT gives the impression that the 70 years applied to Judah only, and describe the period as one of complete desolation `without an inhabitant.' Serving may sometimes include `captivity' or `desolation,' but it shouldn't always be interpreted thusly. The yoke of an oppressive regime can come upon lesser nations prior to, and sometimes without, any subsequent wholesale destruction. A land can be spoken of as being `desolated' even though inhabitants remain, due to repeated attacks against them by pillagers who seek to decimate a defenseless people. Such is what occurred in the days of Babylon. It must be emphasized again that the "seventy years" of servitude pertained to all nations round about, not just Judah.
When did the `servitude to Babylon' for those nations begin? Since dominant world powers exacted payments from the smaller nations in their acquired territory, it is likely that the `servitude' began at the time of vassalage. As far as Babylonian power is concerned, history reveals that prior to 626 BCE, Babylon itself was under the yoke of Assyria. But beginning that year, the Babylonians first drove the Assyrians out of their land, and by 610/609 BCE they had captured Nineveh and the provincial capital of Harran; thus putting an end to Assyrian domination as a world power. In so doing, Babylon took control of Assyria's territories, which included nations to the north of Judah (the ten-tribe kingdom being one), and later Judah herself. Thus, it could be said that the `nations' servitude to Babylon began in 609 BCE. The WT would object to this date, for this would mean that the "seventy years" ended in 539, not 537 which the WT knows is the date the Jews were released from captivity in Babylon. And they would again cite the prophecy at Jer. 25:10, "seventy years at Babylon." But the Hebrew preposition LE, translated `at' in the NWT, generally means `for, to, in regard to,' and is rendered so in a number of modern translations. The seventy years "for Babylon" (or, in service to Babylon) did end in 539, when Babylonian supremacy came to a close. From Jeremiah 25:12 we see that "when seventy years have been fulfilled I [Jehovah] shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation." This `fulfillment' and `accounting' happened on the night of October 5 or 6, 539 BCE, when "Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed and Darius the Mede himself received the kingdom" (Dan. 5:30,31). Therefore, the seventy years given `for Babylon' were completed on that night in 539 BCE.
As was stated earlier, the WT cites seven passages which they say refer to the 70-year prophecy, whereas in actuality only five of these Scripture texts can be used for that application. We've already seen that Jeremiah chapters 25 and 29 contain the prophecy itself. Two of the remaining three, Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chron. 36:20, 21, can only be applied referentially, since neither gives any further information about the prophecy. The last of the five is Isa. 23:15-18, which concerns itself with a 70-year prophecy against Tyre. This may or may not have connection to Jeremiah's prophecy.
The remaining two passages mentioning a 70-year period have nothing specifically to do with the 70-year prophecy of servitude to Babylon, for these two texts do not correspond to that 70-year period, though the WT believes otherwise. Neither text contains any reference to Jeremiah, as do Dan. 9:2 and 2 Chron. 36:20, 21. They are merely allusions to `seventy years past,' and are not relative to a given prophetic period or event. The first is at Zechariah 1:7, 12: "On the twentyfourth [day] of the eleventh month, that is, the month Shebat, in the second year of Darius, the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah...." and "So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: `O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?'" (NWT). As noticed, this was written in "the second year of Darius," which even the WT agrees corresponded to the year 520/519 BCE. Further, the "twentyfourth day of the eleventh month" would therefor be in February of 519 BCE. The WT equates these `seventy years' with the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. It is abundantly clear this cannot be. Why?
For one thing, the angel's question about `denouncement' was asked because Jehovah still (in 519 BCE) had not shown mercy to the cities of Judah. If, according to the WT, the denouncement had ended in 537, the angel would have surely known about it and his question would have had no meaning. Furthermore, if Jehovah had continued to show His displeasure for about 18 more years, the entire period of hostility would be closer to 90 years, not 70. No, these two overlapping 70-year periods (one prophecy, one recorded history) are separate and distinct in their purpose and application:
(1) The prophetic 70 years of Jeremiah concerns Judah and the surrounding nations' servitude to Babylon. As was shown, the period of `servitude' to Babylon began in 609 and ended with Babylon's fall in 539, for it is obvious that there could be no servitude to Babylon after Babylonian power ended.
(2) Zechariah records seventy years of `indignation,' `wrath,' or `denouncement' of Judah alone; its cities, Jerusalem and the temple; and it began at the time of siege and destruction of Jerusalem. By counting back 70 years from Zechariah's writing in Zech. 1:7, 12, we come to 589 BCE, the year Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem.
Then in the final passage of `seventy years,' in Zech. 7:1, 5, we read, "Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Darius the king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah...." "`Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, "When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month], and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?"'" This was written "in the fourth year of Darius," in 517 BCE. The Jew, then, had been fasting and wailing over the loss of Jerusalem and its temple for seventy years; from the time of Jerusalem's fall at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE. If the destruction of Jerusalem is dated in 607, as the WT says, this would again make the time of the observance of the `fasts and wailings' ninety years rather than seventy.
The WT application given to the 70-year prophecy, that it refers to Judah only (following the destruction of Jerusalem) is thus seen to be illogical and unscriptural. Several years before the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah wrote a letter to Jews already in Babylonian exile (Jer. 29:1, 10), in which he mentioned the 70 years. If, as the WT supposes, the 70 years did not begin until the destruction of Jerusalem, why would Jeremiah apply it to the exiles, who were still looking to free Jerusalem from captivity? If the 70 years were not already in progress, why make application to them? Jeremiah wrote his letter six or seven years prior to Jerusalem's fall. Therefore it is further evident that the 70 years be reckoned from a point before the destruction, and even from a point before the writing of the letter.
Unwillingness to Change - Why?
The WT Society has rejected all of the established Biblical and historical facts contained here. They have stated, "...We have relied on the chronological framework indicated in the Bible record and have accommodated secular history to it, rather than give precedence to what may be presently accepted and popular in the way of chronology but which is often conjectural or based on evidence that is undeniably weak." (Aid, pg. 155) The evidence presented in this article showing the true dates of the reigns of kings in the Neo-Babylonian era, the dates for Jeremiah's prophecy, and the seventy years of Zechariah clearly shows the ambivalence of that WT statement. The explanations from all sources herein reconcile with one another, without strained interpretations and in harmony with both the Bible and secular historical facts.
At this time, the questions could be asked, Why doesn't the WT Society concede to all the evidence, and change their teaching, since they have changed on things before? Can it only be that they are headstrong and intractable about this? No, it is not because of pride; at least, not pride alone. They will not change, because they don't want to. They hold tenaciously to their teaching concerning the seventy years because it is critical to their calculation of the so-called 2,520 years of Gentile Times, namely 607 BCE to 1914 CE. If their time-teaching and application of the seventy years is admitted to be false, then in turn, their Gentile Times calculation collapses, along with all other prophetic speculations tied into it. The 2,520-year `appointed times of the nations' teaching is the foundation upon which the entire doctrinal structure of the WT is built. It is the basis for the central thrust of Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not go door to door with the simple gospel of salvation in Christ (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). Their message is of the establishment of God's Kingdom and Christ's `invisible' return in 1914. They actually admit that they are teaching this as a new gospel, not taught in centuries past by the churches! (See The Watchtower, May 1, 1981, p. 17.) Exposing the truth about their calculations totally disables their theological system. Without the premise of 1914, many of their teachings tied directly to this date are no longer valid:
* Christ didn't return invisibly in 1914.
* The Watchtower organization was not chosen by Christ in 1918/1919.
* They are therefore not the "faithful and discreet slave."
* Armageddon isn't `just around the corner.'
* Satan has not been thrown out of heaven to the earth.
* There are not two classes of Christians.
* They are false prophets.
As stated earlier, the WT has interpreted the `7 times' of Dan. 4 as 2,520 years, based on (1) the `3 1/2 times' of Rev. 12:14 being 1,260 days, (2) applying the formula of Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6 (`a day for a year') to the 2,520 days (2 X 1,260 = 2,520). It must be pointed out that in the WT's interpretation of the prophetic 1,260 days of Rev. 12:6, they do not apply the `day for a year' formula, but leave the 1,260 days as literal days. (Then Is Finished the Mystery of God, 1969, p. 314.) If the `times' of Rev. 12 are correlated to the `times' of Daniel 4, upon what sound logical basis is there for applying the `day for a year' formula to one and not the other?
Despite this arbitrary behavior by the WT, the doctrinal system built upon the Gentile Times chronology becomes a `security blanket' where solace and comfort is sought, and a fortress in which to hide for many Witnesses. And hide they do--from the facts! If any part of the `security' or `fortress' is threatened, they react defensively and often with belligerence. This `knee-jerk' defense mechanism makes it difficult for them to think on an objective level. Without realizing it, they've placed their need for doctrinal security over and above a love for truth. For anyone who respectfully and objectively examines the evidence, the information alluded to and found in this article does not `rock the doctrinal boat' of the WTit sinks it. Fortunately, among Jehovah's Witnesses, there are those who have listening ears and open minds. Hopefully this article will reach these ones.
Footnotes:
[1] The Watchtower prefers to use BCE (Before [our] Common Era) and CE ([our] Common Era) rather than the Christian designations of BC (Before Christ) and AD (anno dominiin the year of the Lord). To avoid confusion, the designations BCE and CE are used in this article.
[2] The `tree vision' was a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, who called on Daniel to interpret the dream. Daniel gave it one interpretation that King Nebuchadnezzar would have his rulership interrupted for "seven times," after which his sovereignty would be restored to him.
back to Doctrine
Edited by - TheContagion on 18 June 2002 13:47:24
