|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 14, 2010 18:21:04 GMT -8
I see this passage as clearly about King Herod (and the war between Augustus and Cleopatra/ Marc Antony), rather than the futurist position that somehow a future antichrist is in view.
36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e]
40 "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
Thoughts?
Chris- the Mauro book has a great section on this which I absolutely loved!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 17, 2010 19:21:36 GMT -8
Chris, I really want to thank you for recommending this book. Mauro's exegesis of chapter 11 and 12 is a God-send to me.
Frankly, the book of Daniel has always been a bit of a sore spot to me. Though I have recognized the prophetic in it (70 7s, the dream of the statue), I have often been downright skeptical of chapters 11 and 12, finding the typical perspective of critical scholars pretty compelling (the idea that Daniel wasn't written by Daniel but by an unknown author during the Maccabean era, specifically during the crisis of Antiochus Epiphanes). Most of this centered around the complete inadequacy of the futurist position I grew up with in it's inability to explain why the predictions in beginning of Daniel 11 are so historically accurate and why at verse 36 they seem to radically depart from known facts. That problem makes the critical view seem valid- that the prophecies in the early part of the chapter are nothing more than ex eventu and the reason they go awry at verse 36 is that the author was writing at the time period and began to prognosticate a future that never materialized.
When I came over to the preterism perspective on eschatology, this issue remained for me. I did find one source that got me to consider that 11:36 begins a discussion of King Herod, but that possibility still remained sketchy to me. But Mauro's treatment of the subject is much more thorough- to the point of convincing me.
That was exciting enough, but I was totally unprepared for his convincing treatment of Daniel 12- having relegated most of the details of that chapter to the dustbin of "wha?".
The realization that the book of Daniel contains an amazingly detailed prediction of events not only from its traditional date of authorship (in the 6th century BC) to 125 BC (when skeptical scholars tend to date it), but even more so, from that date forward right up to the life of Christ and beyond, vindicates this book from all my doubts.
I feel like a stone just rolled away from an area of doubt in my mind. Thank God!
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 17, 2010 20:25:13 GMT -8
Wow, makes me want to go back and finish it. I never got around to reading the whole thing so I can't really relate to what you're saying about those chapters.
When I studied Daniel through Steve Gregg's lectures, I just remember him saying that when scholars get to that part of the book, they just completely fall apart. They just end up basically guessing at that point. So, I've never endeavored to take it on myself. But if Mauro has a convincing exegesis of it, maybe I'll take another look.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2010 19:37:08 GMT -8
I especially liked his treatment of the "1290 and 1335 days" of Dan. 12: 11-12.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 8, 2014 18:25:43 GMT -8
Why do you suppose Jesus spoke of "the abomination of desolation" as a future event, if Daniel is just made-up nonsense?
In fact, there are many things Jesus made reference to, and in none of those instances did Jesus indicate that he was quoting fiction. From Adam and Eve to Malachi, he always treated it as historical and prophetic fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 9, 2014 11:16:42 GMT -8
onthe3edge: where did I say that the book of Daniel is "made up nonsense"? I certainly don't hold that view. I was simply saying that I always found the futurist take on Daniel 11 less convincing than the historical-critical viewpoint which does think that chapter 11-12 were just vain predictions. For many years, that left me undecided on the passage. But, seeing chapters 11-12 as referring to Jewish history right up to and including Jesus' ministry solves the dilemma for me, and seems to be the best interpretation- the one that both a) upholds the inspiration of Daniel and b) doesn't awkwardly flash forward from Antiochus to some future antichrist (separated by more than 2,000 years with no indication that we should expect such a flash forward in Dan 11:36)
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 9, 2014 11:46:25 GMT -8
onthe3edge: where did I say that the book of Daniel is "made up nonsense"? I certainly don't hold that view. I was simply saying that I always found the futurist take on Daniel 11 less convincing than the historical-critical viewpoint which does think that chapter 11-12 were just vain predictions. For many years, that left me undecided on the passage. But, seeing chapters 11-12 as referring to Jewish history right up to and including Jesus' ministry solves the dilemma for me, and seems to be the best interpretation- the one that both a) upholds the inspiration of Daniel and b) doesn't awkwardly flash forward from Antiochus to some future antichrist (separated by more than 2,000 years with no indication that we should expect such a flash forward in Dan 11:36) Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "just vain predictions". It seems to me that in an effort to solve every mystery, people sometimes begin to pick and choose which parts to consider inspired. Also, I see many dual prophecies in the Bible. In Dan. 9 (the 70 weeks) we know that this happened in history, yet Jesus also tied a future fulfillment to other events such as "a time of trouble never seen before and never to be seen again". I don't think the line between history and future is easily drawn. For example, in Dan. 9 we read, "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." Yet though this destruction and abomination did happen in 70 AD, there has never been a 'seven' covenant. So in one sentence we have both a historical and a future fulfilment. I don't consider this "awkwardly flash forward", any more than the two conflicting sets of prophecies about the Messiah are awkward (lamb/lion, death/living forever, etc.). I think that there are complexities for the expressed purpose of hiding certain things from certain people (1 Cor. 2:8). Gaps of immense time can be found within a sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 9, 2014 15:05:43 GMT -8
Hopefully I can explain myself better, it's kind of complicated.
I think it's true that many critical scholars who still believe in some vague kind of inspiration (let's say, like Marcus Borg, for instance) do pick and choose which parts of the Bible are inspired, more or less. I think that is dangerous ground because it puts us in judgment over Scripture. Just because some passage of Scripture seems questionable to us, I don't think it's prudent to claim with certainty that it isn't inspired.
That said, there have certainly been times in my life where a passage seemed explained better by secular or anti-supernaturalist critics than by Christian interpreters, which was frustrating. My fall back in times of doubt about certain bible passages was (and remains) "EVEN IF" a passage proved not to be inspired or authentic, that still doesn't negate the solid evidence for the central fact of our faith: the resurrection, and therefor the evidence for the reality of our faith.
Anyway, this particular preterist take on Dan. 11-12 was the first interpretation I found that seemed to vindicate the inspiration of those two chapters. Does that make sense?
I'm not against "double fulfillments" per se. Of course, there are some obvious ones in Scripture we would all agree on. I just think futurists rely too heavily on reading them into texts. Unless there's a compelling reason to expect a double fulfillment, I don't look for one.
If you read elsewhere on some of my threads (I'll see if I can find and post a link so you can comment on them), you'll see that I hold that the "time of trouble never seen before, etc.." in Matthew is actually precisely about the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. See this thread: The Olivet Discourse , my second post touches on this.
And I do think there was a "covenant" of 7 in the first century. See this thread: Daniel's 70 7s , the first post touches on this.
Also, I'm all for complexities and paradoxes in Scripture. But Daniel 11:36 doesn't give even a clue that we should read a jump in it. Should we read jumps in other random passages just because they could conceivably be there? I realize that futurists read the jump because they are convinced that other passages which seem to echo Daniel 11-12 are future-oriented, but if one were just to read Dan. 11-12 in isolation no one would ever even suspect a jump at verse 36.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 9, 2014 15:33:29 GMT -8
Hopefully I can explain myself better, it's kind of complicated.
I think it's true that many critical scholars who still believe in some vague kind of inspiration (let's say, like Marcus Borg, for instance) do pick and choose which parts of the Bible are inspired, more or less. I think that is dangerous ground because it puts us in judgment over Scripture. Just because some passage of Scripture seems questionable to us, I don't think it's prudent to claim with certainty that it isn't inspired.
That said, there have certainly been times in my life where a passage seemed explained better by secular or anti-supernaturalist critics than by Christian interpreters, which was frustrating. My fall back in times of doubt about certain bible passages was (and remains) "EVEN IF" a passage proved not to be inspired or authentic, that still doesn't negate the solid evidence for the central fact of our faith: the resurrection, and therefor the evidence for the reality of our faith.
Anyway, this particular preterist take on Dan. 11-12 was the first interpretation I found that seemed to vindicate the inspiration of those two chapters. Does that make sense?
Yes, thanks. And if you're interested, here's my take on inspiration and inerrancy: www.fether.net/2011/06/17/the-bible-inspiration-and-inerrancy-part-one/www.fether.net/2011/06/18/the-bible-inspiration-and-inerrancy-part-two/www.fether.net/2011/06/19/the-bible-inspiration-and-inerrancy-part-three/Yes, many people read too much into prophecies. I've compared some of my fellow futurists to "the boy who cried wolf" or cats chasing red laser dots; they see a prophetic fulfillment under every rock. But every view of eschatology has its "crazy uncles" and unsolvable problems. I think preterism has to bend some scriptures to fit their beliefs. Yes, Jesus did speak of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and I do take his prediction about seeing Jerusalem surrounded by armies as at least partially fulfilled. But not everything in that discourse fits the past. So while the preterist may take such anomalies as perhaps a flaw in the text, futurists take them as parts to be fulfilled later. I'll have to look at that thread, since I don't see any covenant fulfilled in the past. Yet gaps in scripture don't come with neon signs. For example, when Jesus read the passage from Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:16-30, he stopped at a point that to the listeners was in the middle of a prophecy. The Isaiah passage gives no indication that there was to be any gap or pause between "the year of the Lord's favor" and "the day of vengeance of our God". Yet in hindsight we cannot deny it. This sets a precedence for unmarked, hidden dual fulfillments. So this practice is not as arbitrary and baseless as historicists might presume. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2014 13:02:50 GMT -8
I don't see Jesus stopping at "the year of the Lord's favor" as due to a far future fulfillment of the rest of the text. I think he stopped where he stopped for reasons of the message he wanted to proclaim at that moment. But, of course, he went on to declare in short order (within 1-3 years) that the day of vengeance was at hand as well (the day of vengeance being AD 70).
PS: I moved your last thread regarding the length of Jesus ministry/ the 7 year covenant to the Daniel's Seventy Sevens thread as I thought it fit nicely there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2014 13:07:46 GMT -8
Care to highlight a few of the elements in the various Olivet Discourses that you don't think fit into the past? Could you post it as a response here: The Olivet Discourse |
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 10, 2014 14:23:18 GMT -8
I don't see Jesus stopping at "the year of the Lord's favor" as due to a far future fulfillment of the rest of the text. I think he stopped where he stopped for reasons of the message he wanted to proclaim at that moment. But, of course, he went on to declare in short order (within 1-3 years) that the day of vengeance was at hand as well (the day of vengeance being AD 70). PS: I moved your last thread regarding the length of Jesus ministry/ the 7 year covenant to the Daniel's Seventy Sevens thread as I thought it fit nicely there. Let me try to clarify the point I was raising re. where Jesus stopped reading. If we were reading the Isaiah passage before Jesus came, we would see no space of time between "the year of the Lord's favor" and "the day of vengeance of our God". That is, we would expect both items to be fulfilled at the same time. Yet Jesus clearly came to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, but God's vengeance was not poured out at the same time. This understanding is evidenced by the fact that the disciples were puzzled and disappointed, even after Jesus' resurrection: "Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”" (Acts 1:6). Restoring the kingdom to Israel was not a spiritual event alone but also a phyical, visible one, wherein he would destroy all Israel's enemies. So regardless of the reason Jesus stopped reading where he did, the Isaiah text had everyone presuming that both events coincided. Yet since they didn't, this presents a precedent for significant gaps of time even in passages that give no hint whatsoever of such a gap. This was the point I was driving at: Since there is a gap in the Isaiah passage though no one would have seen it except in hindsight, so also there can be gaps in other prophecies, even if there is no hint of it in the passages. |
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 10, 2014 14:24:38 GMT -8
Care to highlight a few of the elements in the various Olivet Discourses that you don't think fit into the past? Could you post it as a response here: The Olivet DiscourseK, will do. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2014 15:36:15 GMT -8
Let me try to clarify the point I was raising re. where Jesus stopped reading. If we were reading the Isaiah passage before Jesus came, we would see no space of time between "the year of the Lord's favor" and "the day of vengeance of our God". That is, we would expect both items to be fulfilled at the same time. Yet Jesus clearly came to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, but God's vengeance was not poured out at the same time. This understanding is evidenced by the fact that the disciples were puzzled and disappointed, even after Jesus' resurrection: "Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”" (Acts 1:6). Restoring the kingdom to Israel was not a spiritual event alone but also a phyical, visible one, wherein he would destroy all Israel's enemies. So regardless of the reason Jesus stopped reading where he did, the Isaiah text had everyone presuming that both events coincided. Yet since they didn't, this presents a precedent for significant gaps of time even in passages that give no hint whatsoever of such a gap. This was the point I was driving at: Since there is a gap in the Isaiah passage though no one would have seen it except in hindsight, so also there can be gaps in other prophecies, even if there is no hint of it in the passages. Just to further clarify: to your mind, what is the gap in the Isaiah passage? 40 years or 2,000+?
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 10, 2014 16:52:57 GMT -8
Let me try to clarify the point I was raising re. where Jesus stopped reading. If we were reading the Isaiah passage before Jesus came, we would see no space of time between "the year of the Lord's favor" and "the day of vengeance of our God". That is, we would expect both items to be fulfilled at the same time. Yet Jesus clearly came to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, but God's vengeance was not poured out at the same time. This understanding is evidenced by the fact that the disciples were puzzled and disappointed, even after Jesus' resurrection: "Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”" (Acts 1:6). Restoring the kingdom to Israel was not a spiritual event alone but also a phyical, visible one, wherein he would destroy all Israel's enemies. So regardless of the reason Jesus stopped reading where he did, the Isaiah text had everyone presuming that both events coincided. Yet since they didn't, this presents a precedent for significant gaps of time even in passages that give no hint whatsoever of such a gap. This was the point I was driving at: Since there is a gap in the Isaiah passage though no one would have seen it except in hindsight, so also there can be gaps in other prophecies, even if there is no hint of it in the passages. Just to further clarify: to your mind, what is the gap in the Isaiah passage? 40 years or 2,000+?
Since God has not yet wreaked vengeance, I'd say 2,000+. Anyway, I see ample precidence for gaps in prophecies whose durations are not revealed until their fulfillment. Prophecy isn't sloppy or imprecise; every detail matters. If Jesus says something happens immediately after something else, and it hasn't happened yet, then a future fulfillment remains. So also I see Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy as requiring a future fulfillment. I also disagree with the preterist identification of "he": 'He' is 'the ruler' who will 'destroy the city and the sanctuary', and clearly Jesus did neither. There is also a span of unknown duration for "war and desolations". Then this same ruler will confirm the 7-year covenant, and Jesus did no such thing (even if one holds that he established a covenant at his baptism, it was never given a duration of 7 years). And of course, Jesus set up no abomination. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2014 16:08:30 GMT -8
|
|
