Problems with Prophecy
Adventists could easily respond to the author's primary critiques, including his charge that the Adventist prophetic paradigm is unnecessarily Western-centric. For instance, prophecy might focus on the West because it alone is relevant to end-time movements, whatever the breadth of the Mongol or Ottoman empires, for instance. As noted in my paper on Daniel 2 at DIES DOMINI, the book of Daniel frequently omits irrelevant powers, figures, and periods from its prophetic scope. Nevertheless, I am glad that a minority of Adventists are willing to challenge their church's historic interpretation.
That being said, I agree with the author, and believe his critique would be greatly strengthened if he even cursorily treated the Biblical material. For instance, Adventism's "Western-centric" obsession with Rome and the United States ignores Daniel's interest in "your people" (12:1; the Jews), "the beautiful land" (11:41; Canaan) and "the beautiful holy mountain" (11:45; Zion) at what the text terms "the time of the end" (11:40). (Adventists very particularly identify "that time [of the end]" (when Micheal stands up; 12:1) as a reference to the period immediately preceding Second Coming.)
Of course, many Adventists have attempted to interpret Dan 11:40-12:3 as a prophecy concerning the conflict between the papacy, secularism, and sabbath-keepers. Still, something tells me the very particular geography of the passage (including mentions of Egypt, Lybia, Nubia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, "the [Mediterranean] sea," and "the north and east") doesn't lend itself well to so symbolic a reading. One must read the chapter literally, and acknowledge that Adventism's prophetic paradigm is 7,000 miles too far West (and perhaps, 2,000 years too far future) to make sense of it.
25 comments:
Regardless as to how one interprets the text, the truth is...Michael has stood up, and the time of trouble such as never was, has commenced.
I'm not sure if you're trying to champion a particular understanding of Dan 12:1 (claiming perhaps, the time of trouble has ALREADY commenced, and does not refer to a future time), or simply repeating the textual material.
I'm simply saying the Scritpures are fulfilled today in your hearing.
Maybe I should have gone into more detail about the Biblical aspects. The point of my post was fairly narrow. However a link to your paper was placed in the comments. I read through it. It was a good essay. One thing that I hadn't thought of, can you imagine how much hope Daniel 2 gave to the Maccabeans?
I thought about touching on the fact that Daniel probably didn't write the book of Daniel. I have a hard time believing that somebody could have written about the Hellenistic period so accurately, yet made a lot of mistakes when writing about his own time. I thought this would take away from my main point.
Much of Adventist interpertation we have unquestionally inherited from Protestant attitudes from the 17th century, during much of the worst "sectarian violance" Europe has ever seen. Hopefully more of us will pay more attention to the source of our beliefs.
I perfectly understand your choice to preserve the brevity of your pos; as you suggested, a fuller dicussion might have distracted your readers from your main contention. You certainly would not want to ignite so polarizing a debate as that surrounding the date of Daniel's composition (at least not in that post), especially given the conservative views of most Adventists.
You're confidence in a 2nd century date for Daniel is valid. Although I entertain the suspicion, I avoid adopting it, largely because it would require an entire redefinition of Biblical revelation/prophecy, which I don't have the time to pursue. That being said, yes, whether written in he 6th or 2nd century, Daniel's prophecy would have provided tremendous encouragement to the Jews of the Maccabeean era. I must also note my disaapointment that the Adventist rejection of the "Greek view" of Daniel, coupled with the omission of 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Reformed canon, lends itself to a lack of appreciation for the mighty deeds of the Maccabeans. Adventists are only impoverished by their non-expousre to that most brilliant epoch in Israel's ancient history.
Also, thanks for complimenting my paper; reading it over, I realize I must re-edit it this week.
Whether or not Daniel actually wrote the Book of Daniel, if it was written in the mid to latter 100s B.C. it would have been impossible for Ben-Sirach to silently quote from it in Ecclesiasticus. Since the recovery of the original Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus, numerous "silent quotes" from Old Testament books have been discovered throughout that book, included some from Daniel. That treatment indicates by Ben-Sirach's day (circa 200-180 B.C.) the book had come to be highly regarded and treated at sacred or well nigh sacred. But that shoots the Maccabean hypothesis out of the water, and establishes that the prophecies in Daniel were not history deceptively presented as prophecy (which seems to be why so few take account of the implications of Ben-Sirach's Daniel quotes).
For myself, I am content to accept the belief of Jesus and the Evangelists, who wrote of the prophecy of the abomination of desolation as something that was "spoken of by Daniel the prophet." This belief was accepted and endorsed by the Fathers of the Church, and was unquestioned among Catholics until the 1800s. The reasons for questioning or rejecting that belief do not seem very compelling to me, and are all capable of explanation in a way that salvages the traditional authorship and/or leaves intact the Church's faith that the prophecies in Daniel are genuine prophecies and not vaticinia ex eventu (I think that's the correct Latin term).
Yes, and the abomination of desolation was set up on April 19, 2004.
Er, um . . . ooookay.
"...set up on April 19th 2007"
I believe that President Bush called for the renewing of the USA Patriot Act on that date. Relevance?
It is interesting to note that large portions of the Book of Daniel is written in a language called Aramaic. Also, the fact that Daniel refers to God as "God of Israel and Abraham and his forefathers." The Aramaic word for "God" is allah. So then, Daniel refers to Allah as the God of Israel, the same God of Abraham.
Yes, "Allah" is the Arabic name for the God we as Jews and Christians worship. Christian Arabs (Orthodox and Catholic) invoke God as "Allah."
I would not say that "Allah" is the name of God in Aramaic. According to what I have read, it is Elah (or Ilah) and we can see the root "El" used in different names or expressions for God, such as Elohim or El shaddai. Now, Hebrew being a semitic language also, there are often resemblances with other semitic languages. For example, "shalom" in Hebrew is close to "salaam" in Arabic.
Hugo,
Concerning the "Greek view", it is obvious that it is not the right interpretation. It is said in Daniel 7 that the 4th beast is a terrible one with 10 horns. It is also said the "little horn" coming out of this beast will say great things against God and that God's people will be given into his hand for 3 and 1/2 years (Daniel 7:25) and that he will said . Now let's go to Revelation 12:3-6 (KJV):
"3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."
So here we find a beast with the same description having 10 horns standing in front of the woman in labour waiting for her child to be born in order to devour him. We both know that this woman represents the church. Yourself said on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 in your post "Mary, Co-Mediatrix of All Graces":
"4. Mary is intimately related to the entire mystery of the Church. Revelation 12:1-3,13-17 symbolically represents the Church as the woman who gives birth to Christ (a Marian image)."
So, yourself, you agree that this woman in Revelation 12 represent the church and that the Child to be born is Christ (your own words). Now, under which empire was Christ born? We all know that He was born when Israel was under the Roman empire rule. So we know that the beast with 10 horns represent the Roman Empire. But is this ten-horned beast the same one as in Daniel? Well let's see what this beast does. Revelation 12 says that the beast with the 10 horns will oppress the woman (the church) but that she will flee into the wilderness for 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6). In Revelation 12:13-14 it is again said that the terrible beast will persecute the woman who will go into the wilderness for 3 and 1/2 (showing that the 1,260 day period is the same thing as 3 and 1/2 years). So we can see that this terrible beast having 10 horns is persecuting the church for 3 and 1/2 years. And Revelation 13:5 says:
"5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. "
So this terrible beast will say great things and blasphemies and will have power for 42 months (that is, 42 x 30 days giving 1260 days again).
So when we compare this terrible beast of Revelation 12 with the terrible beast of Daniel 7, we can see that these beasts have both 10 horns and are doing exactly the same thing during the same period of time, that is, persecuting God's people for 1,260 days (or 3 and 1/2 years or 42 months all representing the same period of time but expressed under another form) and speaking great things and blasphemies against God. Without any doubt, both beasts represent a same and only power, the Roman empire. Remember that the terrible beast was trying to kill Christ who was born during the Roman domination of Israel. So, considering all of this, it is impossible to say that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 represents the Greek empire in general (and Antiochus in particular), since its supremacy was long gone at the time of the Roman empire and the birth of Jesus.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I don't believe the same entity is in view in both chapters.
1. John adapts the imagery of Old Testament passages without necessarily equating his figures with those represented in their original contexts. In Rev 11:4, the "two witnesses" who prophesy for 1,260 days are identified as "the two olive trees and the two lamp-stands" (that is, Zerubbabel and Joshua in Zech 4:8-14). John's appropriation of the imagery of Zech 4 does not mean that he idenities them with the entities in Zech 4. Similar points could be raised as regards "Gog and Magog" (Rev 20/Ez 38-39), the four horsemen (Rev 5/Zech 6), and other images.
2. The Sea Beast of Rev 13 does not simply share many characteristics with the fourth beast of Dan 7, but with all the beasts of Dan 7 ("seven heads," "leopard," "bear," and "lion" in 13:1-2). Following your argument, the Sea Beast should represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, AND Rome/Europe--not simply Rome.
3. The argument you present interprets passages in Daniel by an entirely different book/vision of the Bible--a poor exegetical strategy. It does not address the actual details of Daniel's prophecies I reviewed in my paper on Dan 2; 11. After providing adequate solutions to those issues, the conversation may shift to parallels with Rev.
4. What about the beast of Rev 11,17? They share many characteristics with the fourth beast of Dan 7. However, (1) Adventists identify them with different entities: the French and the political powers in league with the Papacy (despite the fact they are clearly the same beast). Furthermore, (2) Adventists interpret Rev 17 as an end-time prophecy. If one equates the 10 horns with those in the Adventist interpretation of Dan 7 (i.e., European kingdom), the prophecy makes no sense. In Rev 17:16, these ten horns bring he final, end-time downfall of the whore (also seen as the papacy). In Dan 7, three of the ten horns were uprooted long before the downfall of the beast, however. Adventists do not interpret Rev 11; 17 by Dan 7, and neither should they strictly interpret Rev 13 by the same.
There are more reasons why this doesn't work, but I've taken up alot of comments space already.
Of course, if you think you have decent solutions to those problems, feel free to share them. I just don't see the math working, in all honesty.
I also recommending reading my paper on Rev 13 sometime; there are terminal problems with the Adventist reading of Rev 13 as it is. An appeal to that chapter may not be a good idea.
Hugo,
I think that you are missing the point here. The book of Revelation is written in a symbolic language. While some symbols are given an explanation in the book itself (for example, the angel in Revelation explained that the waters represent peoples and nations) many of the symbols are not. Why? Because the clues are given somewhere else, like in the book of Daniel. So, far from being a "poor exegetical strategy" like you said, it is the normal way of letting the Bible explains itself. We do the same thing when we read the writings of Paul for example when he explains who the children of Abraham are in the book of Romans (chapter 4). In this book, we understand what God meant when He spoke to Abraham about his posterity (that is, that you are of Abraham's posterity if you have faith in God). So we take one book of the Bible to explain another. Even you do it yourself. Everybody Bible student does it! We Christian - you included - validate the Gospel and the life of Jesus by using many books of the Old Testament. Even Jesus said (John 5:39):
"39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Christians understand this as a mandate to search the Scriptures to understand the life and ministry of Jesus. Even Jesus did on the path to Emmaus when he was speaking to two of his disciples and using the texts of Moses and the Prophets He explained to them what was said about Him (Luke 24:27).
So what strange comment to say that using one book to explain another one is a "poor exegetical strategy"!
Also, this comment ignores that fact that going back to the book of Daniel is a natural move if you consider that the beast of Revelation 12, the red dragon, shares many characteristics of the beasts in the book of Daniel (as you observed it yourself). And since the book of Revelation is... a revelation, we are supposed to be able to understand it. This is why the angel gave the meaning of several symbols to John. But not always. Why? Because often the reader is supposed to understand the symbols since the meaning has already been given elsewhere. So, instead of seeing the differences only, we are asked to see the similitudes first, because if they exist it is for a good reason.
Now, when we consider all the similitudes between the terribles beasts in Daniel and Revelation, we see that they both share a physical resemblance (they are both terrible beasts, not just a lion or bear or leopard, and have 10 horns); they behave in the same manner (they oppress God's people and they both say great things against God) and the time of their power against the people of God is the same (that is, 1260 days). We know that these beasts represent a nation or a power. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that there is a great probability that these beasts represent the same power. Of course, this is not a definitive proof. So let's go further and let's try to identify these beasts. In Revelation 12, we know that the power represented is Rome since the beast (dragon) was trying to kill the Christ from the time of His birth, meaning that this beast was active during the life of Jesus and had an interaction with Him. Only Rome fits (we all know about the Massacre of the Innocents when Herod was trying to kill Jesus when He was a baby; we know, of course, about Christ's crucifixion by Pilate; we know also about Jesus' ascension to His Father. All of this happened during Rome domination of Israel).
Now, as you observed it yourself, the beast of Revelation 12 (as described with more details in Revelation 13) shared attributes belonging to the four beasts of Daniel 7. It has the attributes of a lion (like the first beast in Daniel 7), a bear (like the second beast) and a leopard (like the 3rd beast) and, of course, 10 horns like the 4th beast. So it means that the beast in Revelation 12 is linked somehow to the beasts in Daniel 7. What is this link? This link is God's people. The Babylonian empire, the Medo-Persian empire and the Greek empire have all conquered and oppressed God's people and it is the same thing with the fourth beast, the fourth power (by the way, this is why they don't speak about other empires in Daniel 7, like China or the Maya empire or other. Because they have no connection with the people of God). All of the beasts in Daniel 7 are identified (except maybe the fourth one based on the validity or invalidity of the "Greek view"). At least we know that the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, and the Greeks are involved. Daniel 8 shows that the Medes and the Persians are represented with only one animal, the ram. And the Greeks are represented by one animal also, the goat. So it is logical to think that in Daniel 7 the Medes and Persians are also represented with one animal too. This interpretation is even reinforced when we read Daniel 6 when Daniel is about to be thrown into the lions' den, his enemies referred to the law of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 6:8) showing that the Medes and Persians considered themselves as one political entity, not two). So all of this reinforces the idea that the second beast represents the Medo-Persian empire and the third beast represent the Greeks. That leaves us with the fourth beast having 10 horns. And when we compare its appearance, actions, behavior, relationship with God's people and time of action (that is, the 1260 days) with what is said about the dragon in Revelation 12, the resemblance is too striking to consider they don't represent the same power.
It is true that the dragon in Revelation 12 incorporates attributes belonging to the first three beasts of Daniel 7 but according to me there are at least two reasons: the first one is to indicate that this vision is directly linked to Daniel 7; the second one is found in Revelation 12:9 which shows us who is being the dragon. It is Satan. And the fact that the dragon have all of the four beasts attributes is to show that, ultimately, it was Satan who was behind the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires when they tried to oppress and/or destroy the people of God.
So, in conclusion, based on the Bible only, we can see that there are more indications showing the "Greek version" doesn't hold than the contrary and that there are a lot of indications/clues showing that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is in fact the Roman empire (and after all, don't you think that it would be strange that the empire that lasted the longest (compared to Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece), in which the Messiah was crucified and which oppressed Israel and finally destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem (to this day) would be left out and not mentioned in a prophecy that goes from the Babylonian captivity to the Final Judgement to the establishment of God's Kingdom?).
(As for Revelation 11 and 17, there is more to say, but it will be for later)
Again, the fact that the beast in Rev 13 shares many commonalities with the beasts in Dan 7 does not mean that one should equate them, anymore than one should identify "Gog" and "Magog" with the powers mentioned in Ez 38-39, "Babylon" the "woman" with the kingdom represented through the same images in Jer 50-51; Is 21:9, or "the two olive trees" and "two lampstands" in Rev 11 with the individuals they represent in Zech 4. Take the last example: is "the reader is supposed to understand the symbols since the meaning has already been given" in Zech 4? Unfortunately, this line of reasoning, which I once held, does not hold up. John can, and does, appropriate the imagery of Biblical books without importing their original meaning.
Yes, "they both share a physical resemblance (they are both terrible beasts, not just a lion or bear or leopard, and have 10 horns); they behave in the same manner (they oppress God's people and they both say great things against God) and the time of their power against the people of God is the same (that is, 1260 days)." But could this not merely mean that the Sea Beast of Rev 13 is like, or mirrors, the Beasts of Dan 7? (Note: since the Sea beast arises at the beginning of the 1,260 days (12:13-13:2), it cannot embody all four powers described in Dan 7 within itself.) It encompasses the traits of all four kingdoms in Dan 7 (and therefore cannot be identified with any individual one), executes similar activities, and is allowed to persecute for a like (and probably symbolic) period of time.
For a brief defense of the Greek View reading of Dan 7, and a summary of the difficulties of the Roman View (to which themes I hope to devote an entire paper this summer), I recommend you read pp. 6-8 of my Dan 2 paper--especially the footnotes. I would rather not reproduce all that material in this limited space.
Finally, I hope you examine the indications in Dan 2,11 that appear to identify the fourth kingdom with the Hellenistic world (my Dan 2 paper, pp. 3-6).
P.S. The notion "in Revelation 12. . . the power represented is Rome" is a common and very troubling error in Adventism. One should avoid it (I'll explain why in a post).
Hugo,
We know that "Babylon" or "Gog and Magog" are symbols because neither the city of Babylon nor Gog nor Magog were around when the book of Revelation was written. So we can be sure that "Babylon" does not refer to the historical Babylon. But when a symbol is almost identical to another one (in the aspects, in their speech, in their behavior and the time of their oppression against God's people) it is a little far fetched to say that they don't represent the same thing. After all, you didn't have any hesitation in interpreting the woman in Revelation 12 as God's people using a symbol of the Old Testament (where God's people is compared to a woman by God, a pure one when Israel is faithful to God or a harlot when they are unfaithful). You didn't say "oh, I haven't found the exact same image in the Old Testament (meaning, a woman dressed with the sun with the moon at her feet and wearing a crown with 12 stars), so I cannot say that this woman represents God's people". No, you said that this woman represented the people of God, the church. What matters is the general image of the church as a woman, not the differences that exist from one depiction to another (of course, it is possible that the differences convey some nuances).
Now concerning the period of 1,260 days, it is mentioned 5 times between Revelation 11 and Revelation 13 under different forms (either 1,260 days or 42 months or 3 and 1/2 years) so we can assume that this period of time is important. Now the same period of time is mentioned in Daniel 7 and we have to believe it is just a coincidence? In addition to this, we found 2 similar beasts doing exactly the same thing during the same period of time (period of time important enough to be repeated 5 times within 3 consecutive chapters of Revelation) and we have to believe it is just a coincidence or John "appropriating the imagery of biblical books without importing their original meaning". Beyond the fact that such an affirmation is a little bit gratuitous (unless you can read John's mind) we don't want to forget that John is seeing a vision which is giving to him by God. John doesn't choose the symbols, they are imposed to him. So what is important is the meaning God gives to these symbols that He is showing to John. The God of Daniel is the same as the God of John and taking so many symbols from the book of Daniel is a strong indication that God is using the same meaning. If not, what's the point? Don't forget either that John is a Jew (like Daniel) who knew about the book of Daniel (after all, even Jesus made a clear reference to the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15)) and both of them use terms and images familiar to the Jewish culture and biblical writings.
Concerning the "Greek view", there are many problems. In order to identify the fourth beast of Daniel 7 as Greece, you need to identify the second and third beasts with Media and Persia, each kingdom being represented by a particular animal. First of all, this interpretation doesn't hold from a biblical point of view. As I said before, when you read Daniel 6, the officers speaking to the king mentioned the law of the Medes and the Persians. Daniel 6:8 says:
"Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not."
And Daniel 6:12 says again:
"Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not."
And Daniel 6:15 says:
"Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.
"
Note that these 3 texts say "law" and not "laws". This reinforces the idea that it is spoken about one political entity and not two.
We have the same idea when we read Daniel 5:28 which says speaking of Belshazzar's kingdom:
"PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."
And verse 29 says that the same night, Belshazzar was killed and his kingdom taken. So when Daniel was speaking of the Medes and the Persians to Belshazzar, we can see that they were acting as one political entity.
Again the book of Esther gives us the same idea. Esther 1:19 says:
"If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. "
Here it is mentioned about one king asked to make a law bidding for the Persians and the Medes, showing that the "Persians and the Medes" are considered as one political entity (see also Esther 1:3,14 and 10:2).
Again another indication is in the vision in Daniel 8:20 identifies the ram with Media AND Persia together (the two horns of different sizes just indicating that Media and Persia didn't have the same weight in the balance of power. You cannot say that Media and Persia are considered "temporally" distinct when the Bible says that they are represented with ONE animal).
Now, what do we need more to understand that in the Bible, the Medes and the Persians are considered as one kingdom and not two (even secular historians recognize that fact)?
Now, concerning Daniel 2 (I read what you wrote about it) there is also a problem if we try to interprete the fourth beast as Greece. In your essay you wrote the following:
"At some point, the
empire will become “a divided kingdom” composed of smaller realms
(2:40-41). Note that the kingdom is first represented by a single substance(iron), and at a later time experiences division (iron and clay). These realms will still be identified with the original empire (2:41-42): the text
does not speak of succeeding “kingdoms,” but continues to refer to the fourth kingdom as a single entity. These political divisions will compromise the strength of the larger empire, so that “the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle” (2:42). To overcome the political divisions,
the composite realms will attempt to forge alliances or unions by
(royal) intermarriage (2:43). These efforts, however, will not succeed; though they “mix with one another in marriage… they will not hold together” (2:43).
Too you, the fourth kingdom represented by the iron is Greece and the part with a mix a iron and clay represents the same empire but in a state a weakness and division. But there is a weakness in your interpretation. Daniel 2:44 says:
"44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. "
Here we are in the context of the fourth kingdom. If these rulers represent the rulers of Greece (as you say they do), then the Bible says that God, in the days of these rulers, will establish a Kingdom that will never be destroyed. So far as I know, it is not the case (unless you can show me a kingdom that God created in the time of the Greek empire).
So you see, the "Greek view" as a lot of holes.
Still,
I honestly welcome your reasoning through my views on Daniel; don't let my direct tone convince you otherwise.
You may feel my assertion that John can appropriate prophetic imagery without retaining their original meaning affirmation "is a little bit gratuitous (unless you can read John's mind)," but I find your position at least as presumptive as mine, and far more difficult to defend. I can point to instances where John clearly discards the original meaning of OT prophetic images he directly invokes (Zech 4//Rev 11--a passage you have never discussed). If John can discard that original meaning of some images, he certainly could discard those of others. In any case, the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate that every use of OT images in Revelation necessarily*** invokes their original identifications. I do not envy the task ahead of you.
I was also saddened to see that your criticisms of the Greek View overlook my responses to the same in my paper.
1. I propose Daniel depicts Media and Persia as a single political entity in Dan 8, and as two political entities in Dan 7. It's a complimentary conception of the Achaemienid Empire, entirely appropriate for a power consistently referenced as a bipartite entity: "the Medes and the Persians." (Verses which reference both collectively betray the united and* individual identities of these two nations.) The fact these two nations functioned as a single political entity does not preclude them being considered individually.
When you suggest one "cannot say that Media and Persia are considered temporally distinct when the Bible says that they are represented with ONE animal," you ignore the fact that Dan 8:3 asserts "the longer [horn] came up second," affirming a true temporal distinction between them. One arises first, then the other. One might expect this successive rise would have been represented in the parallel vision of Dan 7; I suggest it was.
2. If you read pp. 9-10 of my paper, you will observe that my understanding of the "establishment of the kingdom," which I developed in conversation with Dan 7, is broader than he one you seem to embrace. In my reading of Daniel, the establishment of the Stone Kingdom begins with the the pulverization of the fourth kingdom (an action attributed to the Stone kingdom in Dan 2, but to the celestial judgment in Dan 7), and continues with the gradual rise of the Stone kingdom (a mountain that fills the whole earth in Dan 2, and the acquisition of dominion over the nations by the Son of Man in Dan 7). In his conception, the successive fall of Antiochus IV, the Seleucids, and the entire Hellenistic world represents the first act of the Stone Kingdom.
I see your responses have yet to directly address my arguments in favor of the Greek view, which is troubling. A successful critique of the same must honestly engage them.
Now, Catholics are free to embrace either the Greek or Roman views, so I am comfortable with either. I just believe the Greek view better conforms to the textual data.
Hugo,
The reason the "Greek view" is not really credible is that a lot of assumptions have to be used and there is no proof that any of these is correct. For example, is there anything showing that the fact that the ram in Daniel 8 has to inequal horns means that they have to been considered separately? Even if one horn comes after another, there is nothing showing that Media and Persia are considered as two entity. In the contrary, the angel says the ram represents BOTH Media and Persia. When you said that this distinction (temporal distinction or distinction in power) can be expected to be represented in the parallel vision of Daniel 7, I think it is represented. Daniel 7:5 says that the second animal, the bear, "raised up on one side" (KJV). This "inequality" between the two sides (surely not mentioned by chance) can be paralleled to the inequality of the horns of the ram in Daniel 8 showing that the empire is composed of two inequal "partners". Then if the horns inequalities represent Media and Persia why not say that the inequalities in the bear position represents also the two sides of the Medo-Persia empire?Then it would mean that the leopard would represent the following empire, that is, Greece. Then what about the fourth beast in this case? But you don't say that. In spite of the fact that the text says that the bear "raised up on one side", the "Greek view" considers that the bear just represents Media.
I read your Daniel 2 essay. PP 6-8 made a lot of assumptions and suggestions (by the way, can you show me where Media and Persia "are listed as discreet entities" in Daniel 5:8?). Again, how can you say that Daniel 8:3,20 "even suggest that the two are temporally distinct ("the longer one was coming up lated"), so that Media precedes Persia in a succession of Kingdoms" and that "it is easy to consider the two a sequential kingdoms" when the angel clearly says the ram represents "the kings of Media and Persia" (Daniel 8:20)? The fact that the highest horn comes later is due to the fact that the Persians conquered the Medes (thanks to Cyrus the Great) and became the dominant force in the Medo-Persian empire. So the domination of Persia "came up last" (Daniel 8:3).
In the entire book of Daniel, Media and Persia are shown as politically integrated. I gave the example of Daniel 5:28 where Daniel explained the prophecy and said that Belshazzar's kingdom will be given to the Medes and the Persians. This is clear. I gave you the examples of Daniel 6 where it is made reference 3 times of the "law (singular) of the Medes and the Persians". There is, again, the angel in Daniel 8 saying that the ram (one animal) represents Medo-Persia. All of this confirmed that Media and Persia are integrated and that when Daniel spoke of Media and Persia, in his mind, these kingdoms were integrated (After all, he went into the lion's den because a law that was binding for both Media and Persia). So why, in a sudden, in Daniel 7, Media and Persia would be listed as 2 separated kingdoms, when they were considered as one in the time of the writings? And even when Daniel were serving at Babylon, Media and Persia were already considered one political entity (again, read Daniel 5:28). So, unity, logic and simplicity should indicate that, even in Daniel 7, Medo-Persia should be viewed as politically integrated as well.
(Concerning your note 18 (p 8), there are only two kingdoms spoken of in Daniel 8, not three. I don't know of those of the "Roman view" see 3 kingdoms in Daniel 8 but if it is the case, they are wrong (I would like to know who said that)).
Concerning the "establishment of the Kingdom", it is obvious that all the kingdoms of the world have to pass away before the establishment of the "Stone Kingdom". But what is the proof that "the successive fall of Antiochus IV, the Seleucids, and the entire Hellenistic world represents the first act of the Stone Kingdom"?
In conclusion, I will just repeat what I said in another comment earler. There are a lot of indications/clues showing that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is in fact the Roman empire. And I will repeat the same question: don't you think that it would be strange that the empire that lasted the longest (compared to Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece), in which the Messiah was crucified and which oppressed Israel and finally destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem (to this day) would be left out and not mentioned in a prophecy that goes from the Babylonian captivity to the Final Judgement to the establishment of God's Kingdom?
Personally, I don't think that Rome is left out.
Still,
1. You continue to avoid addressing the textual indications I suggest point to the Greek view (e.g., parallels between Dan 2,11, etc). My paper is built around these arguments.
2. It is not necessary to argue that "in the entire book of Daniel, Media and Persia are shown as politically integrated." I have never denied this point, and have repeatedly asserted the same. However, Daniel's vision distinguishes the the two temporally (one arose earlier, the other later), demonstrating they can be distinguished on some level. If you cannot agree (and I still cannot fathom why you would not), then we will disagree.
3. You asked, "can you show me where Media and Persia "are listed as discreet entities" in Daniel 5:8?" This is a unfair demand, since the verse is set in the Achaemenid period (as all mentions of "Medes and Persians" in the book). The two had already become fully integrated politically.
4. "There are only two kingdoms spoken of in Daniel 8, not three." Some Roman View advocates would agree, and consider the little horn of Dan 8 to be Antiochus Epiphanes. Adventists, however, consider that little horn to be a representation of Rome, "pagan and papal." If you do not subscribe to this version of the Roman view, I apologize. I assumed you were Adventist, or defending the Adventist view.
Adventists making the same argument you present would do so hypocritically. Again, you repeatedly note that Dan 8 represents the Medes and Persians by one beast, implying that Dan 7 would do the same: "Daniel 8 shows that the Medes and the Persians are represented with only one animal, the ram. And the Greeks are represented by one animal also, the goat. So it is logical to think that in Daniel 7 the Medes and Persians are also represented with one animal too." But in the Adventist view, Greece and Rome are both represented in the figure of the goat (Rome is identified with one of its horns). If even in the Adventist view, two kingdoms can be represented by two beasts in Dan 7, and as parts of the same beast in Dan 8, I see no reason why my view cannot follow the same pattern. Moreover, I have a firmer ground for doing so, since Media and Persia were politically integrated. This situation cannot be predicated of Greece and Rome. Happily, you agree the Adventist position is flawed.
5. There are many more interpretations of the "inequality" of the bear's sides. Doukhan observes it can represent a stance of attack (related to the instruction "arise, devour"), a symbol of its threatening nature (ie., conquest). Gurney believes it represents Media's transition from a position of strength to a position of weakness (under he Achaemenids). Your interpretation is valid as well. Dan 7 does not explicitly identify the meaning of this figure. If you insist on accusing me of making "a lot of assumptions" with "no proof that any of these is correct," I find grounds to return the favor. Instead, I find it more polite to simply acknowledge the limitations of the text, and respect the integrity of your proposed interpretation, though I have long since abandoned it.
6. "Don't you think that it would be strange that the empire that lasted the longest (compared to Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece), in which the Messiah was crucified and which oppressed Israel and finally destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem (to this day) would be left out and not mentioned in a prophecy that goes from the Babylonian captivity to the Final Judgement to the establishment of God's Kingdom?"
What about the 1,400 year sovereignty of Islam in the same region? Where is it mentioned? It wrested Israel from the Eastern Roman Empire. And has Rome really survived to the present day? "The Roman Empire" (Eastern or Western) no longer exists, even as a "divided kingdom." The nations that succeeded it were not politically contiguous with it (unlike the successors of Alexander's empire). Furthermore, no nation of modern Europe identified by Adventists as a successor to Rome is clearly contiguous with an immediate successor of the Roman Empire. The political and social evolution of Europe is too complex.
7. "I don't think that Rome is left out." Neither do I; I find its identification with the fourth kingdom persuasive, though not as persuasive as the Greek view. I appreciate the Catholic flexibility on most issues of prophetic interpretation; progressive Adventists wish the Adventist church permitted the same.
P.S. By "I don't think that Rome is left out," I thought you meant, leaving the Roman view out of the discussion, prompting me to say "neither do i" in point 7. My apologies. I now realized you meant Rome is not left out of Dan 7.
Hugo,
I am not trying to avoid addressing the textual indications supporting the Greek view. I am just saying that there is nothing in the biblical text showing in a unequivocal way that the Greek view is valid. That's why I said that assumptions have to be made (by saying this, I didn't intend to make any accusation whatsoever. It is unavoidable to make some assumptions when you study the Bible above all when you study prophecies full of symbols. But it is important to remember where these assumptions are). For example, even if it can be said that the two horns of the ram in Daniel 8 may present Media and Persia in a temporal distinction (after all, why not?), this is no proof that in Daniel 7, these two kingdoms are presented as being distinct. To say that is to make an assumption (again, nothing wrong in making assumptions but they have to be recognized as such). In the same way, we see that Media or Persia can be taken separatedly in different places in the Bible but this does not prove that in Daniel 7, it is the case (above all when most of the references in the book of Daniel present them as bein politically integrated). In short, when the Bible namely mentions one or the other, it is clear. When the Bible doesn't, then we have to look at the context or other indications (if they exist) to see if we can draw a conclusion. Sometimes we are lucky and sometimes we are not. In the unconclusive cases, it is, in general, easier to say what it not than to say what is, because it is easier to criticize (in the good sense of the term) an interpretation (you just have to find something that doesn't fit in it) than to give an alternative explanation. But it is what make the process interesting. It is a kind of treasure hunt. You may arrive to a dead end. But it makes the research even more interesting (though it is possible to be frustrated at time).
Anyway, when building a case for a particular interpretation, everything has to be harmonized. By this I mean that the proven facts and the assumptions have to mix with harmony in this interpretation. If this interpretation fits the assumptions but leaves out some proven facts then it is necessary to go back to the drawing board (by the way, can you tell me where you saw Adventists seeing Greece and Rome in the same goat? I am interested in seeing their arguments).
Concerning the parallels between Daniel 2 and 11, I would say that they are not just parallels. In fact, the further you go in Daniel the more parallels but also details you see. We can say that the vision of the Status in Daniel 2 mirrors the vision of the beasts in Daniel 7. But the vision in Daniel 7 gives more details. In Daniel 8, the parallel is not as complete, as it shows only two animals but in this case, there are more precisions as the corresponding kingdoms are even named (Medo-Persia and Greece). In Daniel 11, the parallel is even less pronounced (so we have to be careful how we apply Daniel 11 to Daniel 2) but it is where we have even more details (this king will do this, that king will do that...).
Concerning Islam, the reason it is not mention may be (again, an assumption :-)) that it appeared centuries after the Greek or Roman empires, in the seventh century. At that time, Israel didn't exist any longer as a nation ("Your house will be left desolate" said Jesus). However, I have to add that some Adventists authors see Islam in the book of Revelation (Revelation 9:3-11). Personally, I am not really convinced as it is difficult to see what the symbols apply to. I will have to dig more.
That's fair.
Honestly, I've enjoyed this exchange, and may have to expand that paper to address certain criticisms you raise. We may not agree at the end of the day, but I think the exchange has helped us both refine our arguments.
Thanks :-)
Hugo,
I really enjoyed our exchange too. Too me, it has been the highlight of these last days.
Post a Comment