The “Seventy Years” of Isaiah 23:15
So much has been said about the “seventy years” of Daniel and Jeremiah in reference to the desolation of Jerusalem on this forum and elsewhere. Of course, as we all well know, the Society interprets these seventy years as literal, occurring from 607 BCE to 537 BCE. This is a fundamental teaching of the Society, as it has defended this literalist interpretation practically since it’s inception. No other organization of any merit on the planet agrees with the Society’s chronology, although some do feel the seventy years were a literal time period in some way. Interestingly, the Society is not consistent in its interpretation, as I will now show. Notice the following taken from the “Isaiah’s Prophecy” book:
Isaiah’s Prophecy – Light for all Mankind Volume I; page 253 paragraph 21:
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king” – the Babylonian Empire – the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17,22,27) True the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination – when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What will then happen to Tyre?
Okay, did you catch that? I did when we studied this paragraph over a year ago in the book study. The Society does NOT take the seventy years of judgment against Tyre as being literal. Their interpretation (which may or may not be the view of modern scholarship; I don’t know) is that the seventy years applied to Tyre is FIGURATIVE – it stands “ROUGHLY” as the time of Babylon’s greatest domination.
What is more, one of the reasons why they say it cannot be taken as a literal seventy years, is the fact that the Babylonian empire fell in 539 BCE (which is true). Since Tyre was not in a state of weakness economically or militarily from 609 to 539 BCE, the Society can reasonably state that the seventy years is figurative. Fair enough. Sounds good to me.
But, the monumental question now comes up: if the Society feels free to interpret the 70 years of Isaiah 23:15 as being figurative, why not take the seventy years desolation of Jerusalem as also being figurative? Why?
There is no honest reason why. The reason is that a literal seventy year period of desolation for Jerusalem is critical to the Society’s chronology which is critical to it’s end-times eschatology which is critical to it’s esoteric doctrines which is critical to it’s existence. That’s why. So much more could be stated (and has been) but that’s the reason in a nutshell.
Take a look at this sentence from the “Isaiah” book again:
“True the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian empire falls in 539 B.C.E”
The Society implies that 539 is a cutting off date for the Tyrian subjection to Babylon, hence demolishing the idea that the seventy years is literal. But, is not the same thing true for the Israelites and Jerusalem? The Society states that the seventy years for them – which they view as literal – extended to 537 BCE. If you are going to use the same logic in the above quoted sentence for Tyre, why not also do so for Jerusalem?
Again, from a scientific and historical viewpoint there is no good reason. The Society arbitrarily decided that the seventy years of Babylonian subjection for Tyre is to be taken figuratively, but the seventy years mentioned for Jerusalem is to be taken literally. I’m not a Bible scholar or historian by any means, but I can clearly see that this is inconsistent at best, dishonest at worst.
Oh yes, book studies like this drove me to drink.
Bradley