The Book of Daniel and Its Apocalypticism

[BavarianWheels]

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. Curious indeed...

Especially since the written law came after the flood!
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

I asked you. I think he did. The question is, do you think he did?

It matters not what I think. The answer is in God's words to Cain.

Now you are under a curse...

The broader question is "Must it be forbidden in the biblical texts to be considered divinely forbidden?"

No. To know God is to know His will. I believe Adam and Eve knew God and knew His will (at least what was right and what was wrong) and taught their children. How did Abel know it was an animal sacrifice that was pleasing to God? It hadn't been written down, but it had been shone to Adam and Eve. (Genesis 3:21)
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

If no, then I don't think your objection to RGB holds.

1) The prophecy section of Daniel was written in Hebrew. This suggests that the prophecy was/is for Israel.

With this logic...the NT was written in Greek...of which you are not.

The 10 Commandments were written in Hebrew...and I don't know if you condone murder, adultery, worship of images...


.
.

My objection doesn't stand on whether the law was written before sin was considered sin or not.

Logic says that because a text is written in a certain language, doesn't make that text exclusive to the people native to that specific language.

If that were the case...the whole of the Old and New Testament are not for the English speaking nations!
.
.

[Jac3510]

But that's my point, Bav. What does "for" mean? I couldn't care less about the "when" in the argument pertaining to Cain's sin or lack-there-of. What I'm interested in is the existence of Scripture to make the obvious fact explicit. If it was a sin for Cain to murder even though there was no explicit Scripture, then why would it not be a sin for you or me to murder even if there were no explicit Scripture (read, the Law is for the Hebrews, not us)?

[BavarianWheels]

But that's my point, Bav. What does "for" mean? I couldn't care less about the "when" in the argument pertaining to Cain's sin or lack-there-of. What I'm interested in is the existence of Scripture to make the obvious fact explicit. If it was a sin for Cain to murder even though there was no explicit Scripture, then why would it not be a sin for you or me to murder even if there were no explicit Scripture (read, the Law is for the Hebrews, not us)?

I don't understand what this has to do with my objection to RGB.

I think we both agree that whether the law is written or not, murder is a sin. (I *think* we both agree.)
.
.

[Jac3510]

Bav, look at your objection again:

Assuming RGB's position that Daniel isn't written to us because it was written to the Hebrews:

1) The OT wasn't written to us on the same grounds,
2) The OT contains restrictions against immoral actions
3) Therefore, these restrictions do not apply.

You HAVE to see the fallacy in that thinking, Bav. Now, I don't believe the OT WAS written to us. I thoroughly believe the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and that it no longer applies. It has NOT been abolished--indeed, as Paul says, it is by faith in Christ that we uphold the Law (Rom. 3:31). But, the Old Law has been set aside (Rom. 7:6, Rom. 10:4, Gal. 2:19, Gal. 5:18, Eph. 2:14-15, Heb. 7:11-28 [especially 18-19], Heb. 10:9).

But, if I don't believe we are under the stipulations of the Mosaic Law, how can I believe that such things as murder and rape are wrong? It's simple--the Law of Christ. He says to love one another and to love God. I believe in absolute morals and further that these morals are objective. People know right from wrong. In other words, I don't need the Bible to tell me not to steal. I know that because I know God.

If I'm right about that, Bav, then your argument against RGB's point is moot. Daniel can be written specifically for the Jews and this will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not Christians are compelled to obey the Ten Commandments.

[RGeeB]

I'm not really sure what the point you were trying to make behind the first observation, RGB. Daniel was written in Hebrew (also Aramaic with a very few Phoenician and Greek words). What do you mean by "was/is a prophecy for Israel"? I thoroughly believe that it is, but depending on what you are getting at, I may or may not agree.

I was putting forward the suggestion based on the fact that Daniel was written after the Jews were scattered across the fertile crescent. Hence the Aramaic may have been directed towards these and the world in general (including Neb's statue) and the Hebrew towards the exile returnees. Hence, the prophecies in Hebrew would have directly concerned the re-established state of Judah. Not suggesting that it is irrelevant for the rest of us - I believe prophecy fulfilled proves that God is soverignly in control of the world.

Now Neb's statue showed empires which followed one another, while the four beasts exist simultaneously. Hence, that leads me to believe that the statue part was fulfilled before and upon Christ's first coming. The beasts is/will be fulfilled around the time of Christ's second coming.

A point to note - The scriptures for the early church was the Old Testament. As Jesus Himself said - they bear witness of Him. A progressive revelation of Him. The OT gives us great insight into the thoughts and feelings of God and how He operates. Now, for me, that is invaluable. Ultimately, we have to know God personally for all to make sense.

[Jac3510]

I was putting forward the suggestion based on the fact that Daniel was written after the Jews were scattered across the fertile crescent. Hence the Aramaic may have been directed towards these and the world in general (including Neb's statue) and the Hebrew towards the exile returnees. Hence, the prophecies in Hebrew would have directly concerned the re-established state of Judah. Not suggesting that it is irrelevant for the rest of us - I believe prophecy fulfilled proves that God is soverignly in control of the world.

Well, I can agree with all of this. Actually, this relates back to the dispensationalism argument. I was talking with my theology prof. about it today, and he made this basic distinction: 1) Dispensationalists recognize the promises of Israel to be promises to Israel and reject the notion that the Church is the "New Israel" (in terms that it replaces the old). 2) Non-disp's (i.e., covenant theologians) believe the promises of the OT, particularly those unfulfilled prior to Christ, are actually promises to the Church. For instance, the land promises in the Abraham Covenant should be understood as promises to the Church that she will inherit heaven.

Regardless, I very much do agree that the prophecies found in the book of Daniel were written top a scattered Israel to encourage and strengthen them concerning their future. Their relationship to the modern Christian is the same as anything in the OT--we can see how God works in history and learn the general principles that He applies. We can find (especially in the narrative portion of the book) some very good illustrations of the type of devotion we should have to God. But, beyond the prophecies that are still unfulfilled (which will be in the Tribulation and Mil. Reign), these have little bearing on Christians.

Now Neb's statue showed empires which followed one another, while the four beasts exist simultaneously. Hence, that leads me to believe that the statue part was fulfilled before and upon Christ's first coming. The beasts is/will be fulfilled around the time of Christ's second coming.

We agree on Neb's statue, but I don't see how you say that the four beasts existed simultaneously. I assume you get this from 7:2-3?

• Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. (NIV)

If this is why, I'd point you to the progression of the beasts.

• Daniel 7:4: "The first was like . . . "
  Daniel 7:5: "And behold, another beast, a second one . . ."
  Daniel 7:6: "After this I kept looking, and behold, another one . . ."
  Daniel 7:7: "After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast. . ." (All NASB)

Especially important is verse eight, as the NASB renders it: "While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them . . ."

Secondly, look at Daniel 8. In this passage, Daniel has a vision of a ram and a goat. The vision needs no interpretation, because in verses fifteen through twenty-seven, he does it for us. The goat is Medo-Persia (8:20), and the ram is Greece and the large horn its first king (8:21). These obviously don't co-exist except that Greece destroys Persia, which was the case when Alexander the Great when on his great campaign. There can be no doubt that these two beasts correspond to Neb's statue--the silver chest and belly of bronze. (see 2:32). The question is this: do the beasts of chapter eight correspond with the bear and leopard of chapter seven?

I think the answer has to be yes. Look at Daniel 7:17. The four beasts are for kings (or empires) that will arise, one after the other. Secondly, the little horn of the goat cannot correspond with the little horn of the beast because it is during the latter's reign that Christ will return (Daniel 7:27). This, needless to say, is not the case for the goat's little horn. He is simply to be destroyed without human agency (Daniel 8:25).

So, to sum up, we have three visions: the statue, the four beasts, and the ram and goat. All three are references to kingdoms that will arise. In the visions of the statue and beasts, Christ's reign is established after the the fall of the final kingdom. Because this is detailed in the fourth beast, it must correspond to the legs/toes of the statue. Also, though we won't review it, the prophecies of Daniel 11 predict the events of the Grecian empire. This was predicted during the Persian reign. Thus, we can be sure Persia is the second kingdom of the statue and that Greece is the third in the statue. It is easily seen that the predictions of Daniel 11 and the little horn of Daniel 8 refer to the same events. Therefore, the the goat, which represents Greece, must also represent the third empire in the statue, placing (again), the Persian empire second.

A point to note - The scriptures for the early church was the Old Testament. As Jesus Himself said - they bear witness of Him. A progressive revelation of Him. The OT gives us great insight into the thoughts and feelings of God and how He operates. Now, for me, that is invaluable. Ultimately, we have to know God personally for all to make sense.

Simply quoted for truth

[BavarianWheels]

You HAVE to see the fallacy in that thinking, Bav. Now, I don't believe the OT WAS written to us. I thoroughly believe the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and that it no longer applies. It has NOT been abolished--indeed, as Paul says, it is by faith in Christ that we uphold the Law (Rom. 3:31). But, the Old Law has been set aside (Rom. 7:6, Rom. 10:4, Gal. 2:19, Gal. 5:18, Eph. 2:14-15, Heb. 7:11-28 [especially 18-19], Heb. 10:9).

Then if this is your standing (which is somewhat like speaking out of both sides of your mouth) Jac3510, that we are to uphold the law...and then say the law is set aside as to say it is no longer good to follow, then explain one thing to me:

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

How exactly does a Christian uphold the law...as Paul admonishes the believer to do?
.
.

[Jac3510]

I'm not sure how this is talking out of both sides of my mouth. If it is, then the Bible itself is doing it. All I did was reference Scripture.

1) We do not nullify the Law by faith.
2) Christ removed the Law.

I suspect you are familiar with this paradox and it needn't be explained. We uphold the Law by faith in Christ, because Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the Law. We aren't under it anymore, or do you think that we are?

[BavarianWheels]

I'm not sure how this is talking out of both sides of my mouth. If it is, then the Bible itself is doing it. All I did was reference Scripture.

1) We do not nullify the Law by faith.
2) Christ removed the Law.

I suspect you are familiar with this paradox and it needn't be explained. We uphold the Law by faith in Christ, because Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the Law. We aren't under it anymore, or do you think that we are?

A paradox: A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

Christ removed the law? Scripture.

Christ removed the curse of the law...not the law itself! (Gal. 3:13)

Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt. 5:17)

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

It seems the paradox is explained here. Slaves...slaves to what? The text says slaves to obedience. Obedience...obedience to what?

The law! Romans 5:20 begins speaking of the law and even farther back than that.

Your explanation in saying, "We uphold the law by faith in Christ..." does not explain what Paul wrote. If we uphold the law by faith, then what is faith? What is faith without deeds? (James 2: 14-26)
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
We uphold the law by:

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

.
.