5. The Times of the Captivity |
|
Once the times of the captivity was the playground of biblical critics, eagerly pointing out apparent discrepancies in the text. But now the authenticity of scripture is clear. Things that were once thought to be contradictions from copyist errors are now able to be reconciled due to an increased understanding of ancient calendar techniques. With the use of Mesopotamian data, often dates can be determined to the very day. God's word is once more vindicated--the critics are once more silenced!
Such "inconsistencies" actually support our belief in the authenticity of
scripture. Critics argue that Daniel was written by an unknown author 450
years after the Captivity. But why would a later writer introduce a statement
that was known to conflict with other sections of scripture? Only a
contemporary would assume his readers were familiar with both forms of dating
and leave it to be understood.
From what point should we date the domination of Babylon over the surrounding
nations? Although the capital of the Assyrian empire fell in 612 B.C., it
wasn't until 609 B.C. that the Assyrian empire finally ended. Thus,
Babylonian domination of the surrounding nations should be dated from this
point. Seventy years later, in 539 B.C., the Babylonian empire fell to the
Persian king, Cyrus. So 609-539 B.C. is the fulfilment of the 70 years "for
Babylon".
The desolation of Jerusalem must be dated from 586 B.C., the year
Nebuchadnezzar ransacked and burned the city. Seventy years brings us to 516
B.C., the year the temple was completed. So 586-516 B.C. is the fulfilment of
the 70 years "desolation of Jerusalem"; after all, the temple was the only
important thing in Jerusalem.
These fulfilments are exact as we would expect. There is no "rough work"
with the Almighty God.
The motivation for this change is due to:
In support of the more usual identification, it is doubtful
if the name "Artaxerxes" may be read as a title here since it is frequently
used to identify the time: "during the reign of Artaxerxes". No one would
identify the time by saying "during the reign of the king". Also, the names
'Artaxerxes', 'Darius' and 'Ahasuerus' are all used in the space of 3 verses,
clearly in reference to distinct kings, not vague titles that may apply to any
Persian king (Ezra 4:5-7).
Finally, if Artaxerxes = Darius, the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy would end
before Christ was born, rather than extending to the time of Christ's death in
30 B.C..
This final problem lends strong support to the traditional identification of
Artaxerxes with Artaxerxes Longanimus.
Seventy years
There are two "70 year" prophecies concerning the times of the captivity.
Both are given in Jer 25:11
This whole country will become a desolate wasteland and these nations will
serve the king of Babylon 70 years.
See also Jer 29:10; 2Chr 36:21; Dan 9:2; Zec 1:12. Contrary to popular belief,
there is no prophecy indicating the captivity itself would last seventy years.
The identity of Artaxerxes
Some have proposed that the "Artaxerxes" of Ezra and Nehemiah is a title
rather than a name and should be identified with Darius I rather than the
usual identification with Artaxerxes Longanimus.
However, these 'problems' are easily solved. Time gaps occur frequently in
scripture; the names in Neh.10 and 12 may be names of priestly families rather
than individual priests; and Ezra could have been the descendant rather than
the son of Seraiah.