Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
Some have said that the prophecy in Jeremiah 25:11, that the Jews would be exiled and in captivity at Babylon for 70 years, is inconsistent with historical fact.
Allegedy the captivity lasted from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 538 BCE a period of less than 49 years. How does one reconcile a claim of prophetic inerrancy when historical facts indicate the prophecy is inaccurate, and how is such a reconciliation achieved in the instant case regarding the 70 (?) year captivity?
The first of the problems arises from the error contained in the question. In the Hebrew, Jeremiah 25:11 refers to “nations” (plural) and does not specify Israel at all. This is because the actual captivity of Jews in Babylon did not begin in 586 B.C., it began with the historically and archaeologically validated battle of Carchemish during the time of King Jehoiakim (also Jeconiah). Josephus, Antiquities, 10.11.1 quotes from the records of the Babylonian historian Berossus where he tells us of the battle in which Nebuchednezzar defeated Egypt in 605 B.C. (when he was co-regent) and took captives of the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Pheonicians, and the Jews.
It was during this first phase of the Captivity that Daniel and his friends were captured and carried away from Jerusalem (Daniel 1:1). King Jehoiakim (Jehoiachin’s father) became a puppet king and servant of Nebuchednezzar for three years before he plotted against him and was found out (2 Kings 24), it then followed that Jehoiachin became King in his father’s stead and reigned about eight years when Jerusalem was then besieged and the treasures of the Holy City were claimed as booty and taken with about 10,000 more people, incuding the King Jehoiachin and all his officers and family, back to Babylon. But this was not the end of the matter for Nebuchednezzar then appointed Zedekiah King (597 B.C.) and he reigned for 11 years (2 Kings 24:17-18). This fact is also historically confirmed archaeologically in “The Babylonian Chronicles” which says:
“He camped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the Month of Adar he captured the city and seized its King. A King of his own choice he appointed in the city and taking the vast tribute brought it back to Babylon.”
The final events of 586 B.C. indicated in Jeremiah 34 are confirmed historically and archaeologically by “the Lachish Letters”.
Now as to the time element of the alleged discrepancy, the error was purposely imposed by the self-professed Higher Critics knowing full well that most modern and western lay-scholars who inquire will judge the time thing according to our sense of reckoning time. The problem is that different peoples have different cultural ways of thinking about time, not every culture is minute/hour ridden in such a literal and obsessive/compulsive way we westerners have. They rely on the same “ignorance of the masses” to fool people about the “3 days and 3 nights” passage in Matthew knowing full well this is a Hebrew idiom describing any part of a three day period. The same usage occurs in 1 Samuel 30:12 when the prophet refers to an event on the third day itself.
The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, pg. 474, describes this so-called “inclusive reckoning” where any part of a day is referred to as that day, just as if I were to say, “remember the week we went camping” when in fact we were only there for a few days, or if I asked, “remember the day we went to the ballgame”? Obviously we didn’t spend an entire 24 hour period at the ballpark! So why should we impose such an inflexible level of literalness on an ancient culture we are entirely unfamiliar with?
Their argument then continues when they declare, "I understand your reasoning but it seems to me that that explanation then, is inconsistent with 2 chronicles 36:20-21 which says: he (Nebuchadnezzar) took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. all the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years". Chronicles establishes specific boundaries of the seventy years and those boundaries fly in the face of historical fact....isn't 2 chronicles relevant or do you persist in the argument that the captivity started earlier?
So yes, my brethren, do not be fooled, Chronicles is relevant, and yes I would still persist in my position, and here is why these are quite compatible.
It appears to me that this understanding comes by the following misconceptions. First that to fulfill the prophecy of Leviticus,
Then the land will enjoy its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your sabbaths, while you were living on it (Lev. 26:34-35).
For the land shall be abandoned by them, and shall make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, shall be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes (Lev. 26:43).
…it appears they either think God must, or is stating that He will, make up for every one of the Sabbatical years they missed in a wooden literal sense. Only they violated 490 years worth of Sabbatical years, neither did they free their slaves at those times (Jeremiah 34:13-17) as the ordinance of God dictated, thus to be absolutely literal (specific), this would have taken 490 years, which it obviously did not. Secondly it could be assumed, by the same type of reasoning, that the land itself would have to have laid fallow and unused for an entire 70 years to fulfill the 2 Chronicles 36 reference, which it does not. Neither of these two most common assumptions are correct! Let’s look at this.
First off, since the Bible is not a single book but 66 different books written over 1500 years time, on at least three different continents, in as many as five different tongues, by people of every age and social strata, most of whom never knew or met one another, we have at least three external witnesses to the prophecy of the book of Jeremiah. These are found in 2 Chronicles 36:21; Ezra 1:1-4; Daniel 9:2; and Zechariah 7:5 (Chronicles and Ezra being one Scroll, Ezra being the author, thus only constituting one witness here). Adding to the fact that the sciences of historiography and archaeology have both demonstrated the Bible to be the most validated and confirmed written work of all antiquity, and archaeology has confirmed the events I referred to as evidence in my previous reply, then according to the rules of jurisprudence, and I might add common sense, there is no justifiable reason to impeach such as credible witness. The point being that one would have to pre-meditatively have made up their mind already that despite evidence and testimony they will refuse to accept the apparent reality that all these people clearly understood (more so than either you or I) what they were talking about. If this is the case, and I am not saying it is, then dialogue is moot because it will make no difference what explanations I provide even if demonstrated to the open mind to be beyond a reasonable doubt. So I hope this is not the case because it is apparent to me that we are otherwise quite scholarly in our approach and intellectually astute! Please understand this was not meant to offend any, for this is really a quality question with a challenge, and these type of questions and defenses are important so long as the motive is pure.
True critical thinking however does not only focus on repeating stock criticisms, or try to reinterpret facts to fit the theorist’s primary theoretical presumption, but rather in the true spirit of the scientific method adjusts its hypothesis to line up with the revealed and demonstrable data even when that data violates or is contrary to our original assumptions. This approach taken over and over moves us closer and closer to understanding what is actual. We must always consider the arguments of the people who we do not agree with us and explore the reasons for their position as I see we often attempt to do here. This is great, we must keep up this good work.
Now then, Nebuchednezzar did in fact finally carry them away that the retribution for these violations, and that by these years where the land lay fallow and un-used, the 70 years were fulfilled, but it wasn’t necessary to have the land lay fallow and unused for the full 70 years (which would be 10 sabbatical years, or a fallow unused year for each of the violated sabbatical years), only that there would be 1 year of captivity as punishment for each of the violated Sabbatical years (70 in all), which began with the captivity of the people in the time of Daniel…and that “…all the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath” was still true, only the cycle of renewal of the land regarding Sabbatical years, based on the Law of Jubilees, beginning the first year (year 50) following a cycle of 7 Sabbatical cycles (49 years), only requires 50 of the total number of years. So after what could represent an unobserved violated grand Jubilee (490 years), God not only freed the slaves of Israel, and in just exchange enslaved their unjust masters, but also restored a full Jubilee cycle (50 years within the 70) to renew the land. Each of the 70 years being 1 year of punishment on the people for each of the Sabbatical years that they had violated, and for not obeying His ordinances and statutes, and are these not anywhere in Scripture represented as a wooden 1 for 1 ratio of years where the land must lay fallow for each of the 70 violated Sabbatical years. So…1 year for each of the years? Definitely! 1 year fallow and unused for each of those years? Not necessary! Plus, I just don’t see this requirement expressly outlined anywhere in the Scriptures. In fact, there was a small remnant that was actually left behind, one of whom was Jeremiah himself, who still occupied the land and used it, so in light of this fact, this unnecessary eisegesis would make no logical sense.
I hope this has helped clarify this dilemma for those who ahve been bothered by such a notion. Blessed is the name of the Lord! Now we can understand the opening two chapters of Ezekiel where in verse on he is by the river Chebar which is the 5h day of the thirtieth year of his captivity but only the 5day of the fifth year of King Johoiachin's captivity (when Jerusalem was sacked). Herein is the controversy of years reconciled for all who have ears to hear. The Lord bless...
Brother Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
