Hello Doug,
Thanks for your further commentary. I didn't realize how up you were on this topic. But you touch on a key point that is pertinent to Olof Jonsson's position. That is, that I can see where one could apply a 70-year period of servitude by the nations beginning anytime that Babylon conquered any nation. But that is a point besides a separate 70 years for the land to pay back its sabbaths.
That means, I have no argument against your concept of a 70 years that begins before the last deportation, if you want. You don't see 70 years of desolation to necessarily be connected with the servitude of these nations. Well that's fine. But the chronology of the 70 years of desolation starting with the last deportation would be a separate 70 years.
In my presentation, I relied solely on the Hebrew Scriptures. The only uninspired commentary that I used was mine. I did not make reference to Josephus or to any other secular source. I have no intention of widening the scope. My points are adequately shown by citing Scripture.
I deliberately made no reference to dates or even lengths of kings’ reigns, since that provided an opportunity for a distraction from the clear point I was making. The dates do not matter; the lessons do.
You note that you do not mention any uninspired commentary. But the fact is, you could not come up with the concept of the 50 years without any uninspired commentary because that comes from secular history, and revised secular history at that. Even so, I don't need any non-Biblical reference to establish a 70-year period after the fall of Jerusalem confirming the Jews were still in exile. Zechariah 1 does that for me. Thus, I would have to comment on this reference:
ZECH 1: 7 On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, that is, the month She´bat, in the second year of Da·ri´us, the word of Jehovah occurred to Zech·a·ri´ah the son of Ber·e·chi´ah the son of Id´do the prophet, saying: ...
12 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?”
This is the second year of "Darius" and it has been 70 years since the denunciation of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. God has not yet shown "mercy" to these denounced cities. Now one interpretation, the one I have, is that this is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and by the 2nd year of Darius, these cities remained denounced. That is, God had not yet shown "mercy" to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. And what does showing "mercy" to these denounced cities mean? To me, it means that he will lift the denouncement and allow them to be rebuilt. Thus this represents the 70th year after the destruction of these cities and they were still not rebuilt yet, and thus the Jews are still in exile. Yet it is the second year of "Darius."
Adding to this is verse 16:
16 “Therefore this is what Jehovah has said, ‘“I shall certainly return to Jerusalem with mercies. My own house will be built in her,” is the utterance of Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line itself will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”
The above tells us that the house of God, his temple, had not been built yet. A measuring line is used when the foundations and walls are about to be built. So this is very much into the context that Jerusalem was still completely desolated and not rebuilt. Yet this is the second year of "Darius." Since we know the people began to rebuild in the 1st of Cyrus when they first returned, this must be before that time.
So what is happening here? Jeremiah 52:30 is what is happening:
29 In the eighteenth year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls.
30 In the twenty-third year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls.
The LAST DEPORTATION was in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Verse 30 does not distinguish that this last deportation wasn't from Jerusalem either. It specifically notes the 18th year deportation was from Jerusalem though. Is there any indication that this last 23rd year deportation was from Jerusalem as well? Yes. You see while the few poor people left in the land did run down to Egypt and refused to return, the Bible says those left remaining from the sword would return to Judah, thus Jerusalem:
Jeremiah 44: 28 And as for the ones escaping from the sword, they will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah,few in number; and all those of the remnant of Judah, who are coming into the land of Egypt to reside there as aliens, will certainly know whose word comes true, that from me or that from them.”’”
And how do we know that the last deportation was of these Jews returning to Judah? 2 Chronicles 36 says they were, calling them the "ones who escaped from the sword."
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.
Those who were left "remaining from the sword" are those who had been left off from being killed down in Egypt. These would return to "Judah" and so must have been deported after returning in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. They would serve Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the "royalty of Persia" began to reign. That is, when Cyrus the PERSIAN began to reign, versus Darius the MEDE began to reign. The first king of Babylon after Cyrus conquered Babylon with the Medes was none other than Darius the MEDE.
Daniel 5: 30 In that very night Bel·shaz´zar the Chal·de´an king was killed 31 and Da·ri´us the Mede himself received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
Now we all know about Daniel and the Lion's den. And it is clear that Darius is King of Babylon at this time. So Daniel was still an official during the reign of Darius the Mede. But the Bible says Daniel's service ends at the 1st of Cyrus:
19 And the king began to speak with them, and out of them all no one was found like Daniel, Han·a·ni´ah, Mish´a·el and Az·a·ri´ah; and they continued to stand before the king. 20 And as regards every matter of wisdom [and] understanding that the king inquired about from them, he even got to find them ten times better than all the magic-practicing priests [and] the conjurers that were in all his royal realm. 21 And Daniel continued on until the first year of Cyrus the king.
This is consistent with Darius ruling over Babylon for a time before Cyrus actually took over rulership, during which time, Daniel was still in bondage at Babylon. That Darius' rule was first and separate from that of Cyrus is indicated at Daniel 6:
28 And as for this Daniel, he prospered in the kingdom of Da·ri´us and in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian.
Now please note that per 2 Chronicles, the Jews that were last deported were to continue in servitude until the "royalty of Persia" began to rule. That means it was not until the 1st of Cyrus that the Jews were released. Thus the "royalty of PERSIA" is distinctly apart from the rule of Darius the MEDE. Darius the MEDE was not considered part of the "royalty of PERSIA."
But now this explains for us the reference in Zechariah 1, where we find it is 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and yet the Jews are still in exile wondering when God is going to show mercy to the cities and allow the Jews to return and rebuild them. But there is no conflict here, since this would obviously be the second year of Darius the MEDE that is in reference here. Why not conflict? Because as 2 Chronicles notes, Jeremiah's prophecy was about the land paying back its sabbaths and that was to take 70 years. The people were to be off the land for those 70 years. If so, and those 70 years did not begin until the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem, then the Jews would have still been in exile a mere 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem. They still would have had four more years to go. That means that Darius the Mede must have ruled for a full 6 years before Cyrus took over the entire empire and started ruling from Babylon. That the Pesian royalty would rise up and dominant the Medes was even prophetic!
Daniel 8: 3 When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward . 20“The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me´di·a and Persia.
So we learn that one part of the empire would become dominant over the other but not at first, later. This perfectly explains how Cyrus became king over the united Persian Empire after a short period of equal co-rule after Medo-Persia conquered Babylon. Darius the Mede ruled over Babylon and Cyrus ruled over the Persian part of the empire. Then Cyrus became king over all of Persia after six years of rule by Darius the Mede and the Medes became subjects of the "royalty of Persia." This was also the official end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire because Darius the Mede was the "son"/grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.
SUMMARY: In summary, even if a period of 70 years of servitude for some of the nations serving Babylon occurred when they first were conquered, that is apart from the 70 years the land of Judah and Israel had to remain desolated, and it was not desolated until the last deportation. That is consistent with the Jews still being in exile 70 years after the fall of Jerualem, which expired in the 2nd year of Darius the Mede. So we are in agreement that it might not be necessary to connect any 70 years of servitude for the nations that might have begun prior to the last deportation. But that would not change at all the 70 years of desolation that begins with the last deportation where the Jews continued off the land until the 1st of Cyrus. This establishes BIblically that Darius the Mede ruled for six years.
So, in essence, it is not enough to PROVE that there was a period of 70 years for the nations to serve Babylon apart from the servitude of those of the last deportation. What you have to do is to DISPROVE that the lenth of service of those last deported was not a 70-year period.
So you have the same position as Olof Jonsson here. He goes to a lot of trouble to establish that there would be a 70-year period of servitude for the nations to Babylon. That's fine. But that doesn't mean there wasn't also a 70-year period of servitude for those lasted deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Both of you are saying the desolation of the land and the servitude of the people last deported are not connected to the 70 years of servitude by the nations. That's fine if you don't want them connected. But that doesn't prove those last deported didn't serve 70 years as well. It doesn't disprove that the land of Judah did not remain completely desolated for 70 years as well following the last deportation.
JC
