You are hereIs Michael Christ? (Part 2)

Is Michael Christ? (Part 2)

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Islamaphobe - Posted on 03 June 2007

by John Evans
In this article, I continue my defense of the proposition that the supernatural being called Michael is to be understood in both Daniel and Revelation as the pre-incarnate figure of Christ. In Part 1, I commented on the references to Michael in the only books of the Bible that mention him: Daniel, Revelation, and Jude. In Part 2, I shall finish looking at Jude, which necessitates also looking at 2 Peter and Zechariah 3. I shall then return to Daniel so as to more fully discuss its treatment of Michael. I shall mention Revelation 12 only in passing.In this article, I continue my defense of the proposition that the supernatural being called Michael is to be understood in both Daniel and Revelation as the pre-incarnate figure of Christ. In Part 1, I commented on the references to Michael in the only books of the Bible that mention him: Daniel, Revelation, and Jude. In Part 2, I shall finish looking at Jude, which necessitates also looking at 2 Peter and Zechariah 3. I shall then return to Daniel so as to more fully discuss its treatment of Michael. I shall mention Revelation 12 only in passing.The Book of Daniel refers to Michael as the “prince” who protects Daniel’s people. Revelation 12 presents him as the leader of the angels who fight against the “dragon” (Satan) and his angels to protect the Christian church in its infancy. Jude 9 presents him as “Michael the archangel,” who disputed with the devil about the body of Moses. I indicated in Part 1 that while I cannot be sure that Jude took Michael to symbolize Christ, a proper understanding of how Michael came to be mentioned in Jude 9 suggests that whatever Jude’s view of him may have been, it does not affect the case for holding that Michael is Christ in both Daniel and Revelation.

Jude’s reference to Michael must be understood, I am confident, in light of the influence of the Book of Enoch and various other stories and traditions that led to many first-century AD Jews, including converts to Christianity, being steeped in beliefs about angels as supernatural beings that were at variance with the teachings of Christ and his apostles. The influence of such beliefs no doubt helps explain why 2 Peter devotes much of its message to dismissing the claims of “false prophets” with “cleverly disguised tales” who were circulating “destructive heresies” among the Jews (1:16, 2:1). Although 2 Peter does not mention Michael, its parallel passages can help us understand why Jude does so.

Two Peter 2:4-9 state that if God cast angels who sinned into Tartarus to await their final judgment, if He brought a flood to destroy ungodly people in the time of Noah, if He condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, and if He rescued the righteous Lot from the lawless men around him, then He “knows how to rescue the godly from temptation.” The insertion of the conditional if into these verses opens the door to the possibility that Peter did not believe that all of these things had actually occurred. Because Genesis does not present an account of fallen angels but does bring in Noah, etc., I suggest that Peter’s purpose in inserting the ifs was to challenge the idea that angels had sinned.

With regard to the following analysis of 2 Peter 2 and Jude, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to Steven Cox, a Christadelphian whose Internet writings have been invaluable in accelerating my progress down the exegetical road upon which I had already started in my analysis of Jude. In several detailed, well-written, and tightly reasoned articles posted on the Internet, Cox provides a persuasive explanation of how Jude 9 came to mention Michael, an explanation that leads to the inference that Jude’s treatment of Michael does not contradict his treatment in Daniel and Revelation.[1]

The section of Genesis devoted to Noah and the Flood (chapters 6-9) begins with this passage (NASB): “1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” In the Book of Enoch, two hundred angels sin by taking human wives and spawning a race of giants who cause the world much trouble. God sends obedient angels to dispose of the giants, and under the leadership of Michael, the fallen angels are bound and thrown into Tartarus to await the final judgment upon them after seventy generations. The Enoch myth and other myths about fallen angels appear to have sprung from these two verses of Genesis 6. That 2 Peter 2:4 was written with this background in mind seems highly probable. Cox cites with approval the view of St. Augustine that the biblically correct view of “the sons of God” of Genesis 6:2 is that they were the sons of Seth who intermarried with the “daughters of men”; i.e., the descendants of Cain.[2]

I pointed out in Part 1 that 2 Peter 2:11 parallels Jude 9, but I did not explain how Michael’s name came to be inserted into Jude 9. I shall now embark upon that daunting task after first quoting 2 Peter 2:9-10 (NASB): “9then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties.” For verse 10b, the more “artistic” NIV gives: “Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings.” We must conclude, I think, that Peter did not take “the sons of God” of Genesis 6:2 to be angels and that he did not believe in fallen angels. Among such fallen angels would be Satan.

Here, again, are 2 Peter 2:11 and Job 9 (NASB).

2 Peter 2:11. whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.

Jude 9. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

In these verses, the NIV has “slanderous accusations” in place of “reviling judgment” and “railing judgment.”

If we look at the verses that immediately precede 2 Peter 2:11, we see that Peter is saying that although corrupt and ungodly men do not hesitate “to slander celestial beings,” these same “celestial beings” do not return the “favor.” The authority to judge thus belongs to God, not angels. Jude 9 contains the reference to “slanderous accusations” found in 2 Peter 2:11, but it also has material that is not in the parallel verse. Thus, it replaces the “angels who are greater in power and might” with Michael, adds a dispute with the devil about the body of Moses, and also adds “The Lord rebuke you.” These differences merit a brief explanation.

We can be confident that Jude was written later than 2 Peter and that the differences between them reflect this fact. Jude thus had 2 Peter to work from. He probably chose to substitute Michael for Peter’s mighty angels because Michael was believed by many Jews, including converts to Christianity, to be the leader of the “celestial beings” and he wanted to emphasize that even the most powerful angel did not render judgments. I realize that in taking this position, I am opening the door to the possibility that Jude himself regarded Michael as a mere “celestial being” rather than the pre-incarnate Christ. On the other hand, I incline toward the interpretation that although Jude reinforced Peter’s position on angels by suggesting limitations to their authority, he indicated that Michael is more than an “angel” by calling him “the archangel” and empowering him to invoke the authority of God. After all, in saying “The Lord rebuke you!”, that is what Michael is doing.

Incidentally, I think it is possible that the prophet Daniel regarded Michael as an angel rather than deity. What really matters, however, is not what Daniel believed, but how accurately his prophecy has been transmitted to us. Recalling the words of 2 Peter 1:20a-21b, let us remember that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will” (NASB). The prophets recorded what was given to them; how we understand their revelations reflects our ability to interpret Scripture. Fortunately, as Daniel 12:4 reminds us, “many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.” And although these words of Daniel were written, I am confident, in reference to “the time of the end” of the first century, they continue to be applicable. I tend to criticize what I regard as an over-reliance upon prophetic typology, but I also firmly believe that many prophecies present themes and principles that are repeated in history. What I am reluctant to do is to accept the notion of prophecies that have multiple “primary applications.” That I regard as redundancy.

But what about Jude’s insertion into verse 9 of the dispute between Michael and the devil over “the body of Moses”? When I first read Jude 9 and sought an answer to this question, I discovered the existence of an apocryphal work called The Assumption of Moses. According to a Wikipedia article, this work survives in a single Latin manuscript from the sixth century and purports to contain the secret prophecies that Moses revealed to Joshua at the end of his life. Included in the Assumption of Moses is the account of a dispute between Michael and Satan over Moses’ body.[3] It has been assumed by some biblical scholars that the reference to Michael and the body of Moses in Jude 9 was derived from the Assumption of Moses. This, however, appears to be unlikely. In the first place, it means that a canonical work is made to be the source for the authentication of a non-canonical work whose claim for validity would otherwise be non-existent. As Michael Scheifler notes, this invalidates the principle of sola scriptura.[4] In the second place, as Steven Cox painstakingly points out, it is unlikely that the reference to the body of Moses in the Assumption of Moses could have inspired Jude 9 in any event.[5]

According to Cox, modern commentaries commonly assume that Jude 9 quotes from the Assumption of Moses, which they regard as an important Jewish apocryphal work. It is true, he writes, that “Michael is credited in Jewish myth as being the angel who buries the body and escorts the soul to paradise,” but it is also true that in the Jewish sources that mention Michael or Moses, the devil never attempts to steal the body of Moses, or, for that matter, the body of either Adam or Abraham. In Cox’s opinion, the story of the dispute between Michael and Satan survives outside Jude 9 only in Christian literature based on Jude 9. In other words, it appears that the material in the Assumption of Moses pertaining to Michael and Satan and various legends that must have been derived from this source “are suspect as being after Jude, not before it, and are likely false attempts to explain Jude.” Furthermore, he adds, these sources “lack the references to Deuteronomy 34 that would be found in a genuine Jewish midrash on the burial of Moses.”[6]

If the Assumption of Moses was not the source for Jude 9’s encounter between Michael and the devil, then what was? The obvious choice is Zechariah 3, which features the story of the high priest Joshua. Because of their relevance for understanding Jude 9, here are Zechariah 3:1-2 (NASB): “1Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not a brand plucked from the fire?” Note the following points of correspondence between these verses and Jude 9: (1) “the angel of the LORD” corresponds to “Michael the archangel”; (2) Satan corresponds to the devil; and (3) both verses have the LORD rebuking the devil/Satan. In addition, it should be noted that in Jude 23, it is stated that God’s love will save some individuals by snatching them “out of the fire.” This corresponds, of course, to the “brand plucked from fire” in Zechariah 3:2. The conclusion that Jude drew upon Zechariah 3 is, I think, inescapable.

To fully analyze the possible links between Zechariah 3 and Jude would require the writing of another article and would take me away from my focus on Michael. I shall, therefore, limit my comments on those links to a few “shotgun” observations. First, I assert that “the angel of the LORD” of Zechariah 3:1 is equivalent to deity and is also the equivalent of Michael. Second, I suggest that the reference to “the body of Moses” in Jude 9 refers not to the corpse of the prophet who led the Exodus, but to Joshua the high priest, who was charged with the responsibility for restoring the Jewish faith during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The “body of Moses” is thus to be understood symbolically as referring to keepers of the faith rather than literally. Third, Satan, the accuser of Joshua in Zechariah 3:1, symbolizes the human accusers of Joshua/Jeshua (See Ezra 4:7.). This means that in Zechariah 3, “Satan” is human, and this finding is consistent with the theology of 2 Peter 2, where the “fallen angels” are men. A logical conclusion, therefore, is that the “devil” of Jude 9 is also human. Steven Cox provides an invaluable elaboration of the second and third observations.[7]

And now, finally, I can return to Daniel. Here I shall start with the statement that I take it for granted that the “one like a Son of Man” of Daniel 7:13 is Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. I know that liberals tend to insist that this figure is either the collective symbol of the Jewish people or Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews. I also know that the NAB, the Bible endorsed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops holds (Daniel 7, note 8) that the son of man figure represents “the glorified people of God that will form his kingdom on earth” who are symbolized here in human form and that Jesus chose to adopt the title of “Son of Man” as “his most characteristic way of referring to himself, as the One in whom and through whom the salvation of God’s people came to be realized.” While I regard the NAB’s position as verbose nonsense, at least it allows a secondary application of 7:13 that is Messianic in the Christian sense.

Daniel 7:14 informs us (NASB) that “all the peoples, nations and men of every language” will come to serve the one like a Son of Man and that his dominion will be everlasting. Later in Daniel 7, the terrible “little horn” wages war against the “saints” until (v.22) the Ancient of Days (God) renders judgment in their favor, with the result that “the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom.” Verse 27 reaffirms that the “saints” will receive an “everlasting kingdom” in which they “will serve and obey Him,” meaning God. Because 7:14 assigns dominion of the everlasting kingdom to the one like a Son of Man and 7:27 assigns it to God, a reasonable conclusion is that the son of man figure is deity.

Given the great importance that Daniel 7 assigns to the one like a Son of Man, I surmise that someone studying Daniel for the first time who has not been seriously exposed to the received opinions of liberal biblical scholars would naturally expect, before reading Daniel 8-12, that this figure would reemerge in the three visions that constitute those chapters. Such an expectation would be doomed to disappointment, for liberal scholars have collectively done their best to remove the one like a Son of Man from the visions of Daniel 8, 9, and 10-12. On the whole, I concede, conservatives have not advanced a strong case for finding the messianic figure of Daniel 7 in the visions of 8 and 10-12. In my judgment, however, He is there. In the analysis that follows, my biblical quotations are, as usual, from the NASB unless otherwise noted.

Using “angels” in the sense of being divinely appointed messengers, including the Son of Man figure of 7:13, angelic figures first appear in Daniel 8 in verse 13: “Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one that was speaking, ‘How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?’” Then, after next verse informs Daniel that 2,300 evenings and mornings will transpire before “the holy place will be properly restored,” verse 15b records: “behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man.” I submit that this being is the one like a Son of Man of 7:13.

In 8:14, Daniel hears “the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai” ordering Gabriel to “give this man an understanding of the vision.” Being “beween the banks” suggests to me that the “man” of the voice is hovering over the waters of this river/canal, and that is remindful of “the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river” in 12:6. I assume that the “man” who speaks in 8:14 is the “one who looked like a man” in 8:13. That this “man” is the messianic figure of 7:13 follows from his description and his superiority to Gabriel. In the remainder of Daniel 8, Daniel receives an explanation of the vision from a being who can be presumed to be Gabriel, and there is no further mention of the hovering “man.”

For conservatives, the Messianic figure of Daniel 7 reemerges in Daniel 9 as the “Messiah” or “Anointed One” of verses 25-27. Liberals are barred from doing likewise, of course, by their insistence on trying to cram the fulfillment of Daniel’s “seventy weeks” prophecy into a box that can’t hold it, thereby producing some of the most remarkable feats of eisegesis to be found outside of dispensationalism. The “man Gabriel” is named in 9:21 as the messenger who gives the prophecy to Daniel.

Michael is mentioned three times in the Book of Daniel, all of them being in the last vision. After informing Daniel in 10:12 that he has heard his words of supplication and has come in response to them, the narrating angel, presumably Gabriel, says this in verse 13: “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.” How my views have changed since I first pondered this verse! I initially assumed that Michael was merely an important angel of the “celestial being” variety, that he was in the same general class of angels as Gabriel, and that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” was probably a “dark angel” who belonged to Satan’s “legion.” I now believe that Michael is the pre-incarnate Christ, that he is to be regarded as Gabriel’s superior, and that the “prince” of Persia and “the kings of Persia” are to be regarded as mere humans, whose sinful nature compels them to resist the will of “celestial beings.”

Michael is mentioned again in 10:21, when Gabriel (I assume) informs Daniel that “there is no one who stands firmly with me against these [evil] forces except Michael your prince.” Finally, in 12:1, after the villain of 11:40-45 meets his end, Gabriel makes this announcement: “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.”

The Michael of these verses can readily be accommodated to fit the theological view that he is the guardian angel (but not God) who gives special protection to the Jewish people, but making him fit into Christian theology as the pre-incarnate Christ is, I admit, a serious challenge. I don’t have any difficulty with 12:1 in that regard because I am confident that 11:40-45 apply to the period of time that ended with the death of Herod the Great and the birth of Christ (ca. 2 BC, according to Kurt Simmons). Verse 10:13 can best be dealt with, as I pointed out in Part 1, by arguing that “one of the chief princes” is better translated as “first of the chief heads.” That translation can then be combined with the argument that when Michael is called “the archangel” in Jude 9, this means that He is the leader of the “celestial beings” but does not have to be one Himself. The reference to Michael in 10:21 is arguably consistent with this view given the relationship established between God and the Jewish people under the Old Covenant.

There remains the task of considering the identity of the “man in linen,” whom we meet in 10:5-6: “5I lifted my eyes, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. 6His body was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.” Although the justly esteemed premillennialist Gleason Archer wrote that “Verses 5-6 are probably the most-detailed description in Scripture of the appearance of an angel,”[8] I have to strongly disagree. The man in linen is no angel. He is the Messianic figure of 7:13, which is to say that He is the pre-incarnate Christ. I suggest that you can verify this by comparing these two verses with Revelation 1:13-16, 2:18, and 19:12. Moreover, in Daniel 10:7, Daniel says that he alone saw the man in linen, but that “a great dread” fell over his companions, who ran away; and in the next verse, Daniel states that he turned deathly pale and lost all of his strength. This, of course, is remindful of Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-7). In addition, if we compare Daniel’s reactions to the presence of the man in linen in 10:8-9 and the man between the banks of the Ulai in 8:17-18, we find a big difference from how he reacts to Gabriel’s appearance in 9:21-23. I attribute the difference to the presence of deity in Daniel 8 and 10.

In Daniel 10:10-14, Daniel is spoken to by a being who is evidently not the man in linen. One has to assume that this “man” is Gabriel. In 10:16-18, he is approached by “one who resembled a human being” (v.18), who is evidently not Gabriel. In 10:16, this being touches Daniel’s lips. Daniel is spoken to again in verses 19-21, and while it can reasonably be assumed that the being doing the speaking is again Gabriel, it is not clear just where Gabriel begins and the other being leaves off. Ernest C. Lucas, whose commentary on Daniel I regard as very competent effort by a moderate liberal to produce a genuinely fair and balanced work, states that it is not clear just who is talking to Daniel in verses 15-19. His analysis leaves room for the implication that the awesomeness of the experience could be reasonably understood as having caused some confusion in Daniel’s mind.[9]

Daniel 11 features a long series of prophecies that liberals and even some moderate conservatives believe have their end-time fulfillment during the time of Antiochus IV in the second-century BC, but which, I believe, carry through to the death of Herod the Great. Daniel 12:1 then brings in “Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people,” and 12:5 has Daniel looking out and seeing “two others” who are standing separately on either side of the river, which Daniel 10:4 gives as the Tigris. One of these “others” then speaks in 12:6 to “the man dressed in linen,” who is above the waters of the river, asking, “How long will it be until the end of these wonders?” The man in linen responds in 12:7b with these unforgettable words (at least for a preterist) “it would be for a time, times and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed” (emphasis added). I again submit that the man in linen is Christ!

But is he Michael? Yes, I believe so. Although there is no clear and unambiguous statement to that effect in the Bible, one has to keep in mind that religious beliefs grounded in the Holy Bible have always had to compete with those of other faiths. From the days of the OT through the first centuries of the Christian Era, the proponents of a biblically based faith had to contend with all kinds of pagan superstitions, including beliefs in fallen angels and demonic spirits, and this fact obviously tempered the manner in which God revealed Himself to “the people of the book.” I do not intend to imply that the Bible is full of lies and half-truths, for I know that is not the case. I do believe, however, that if we are to fully understand what the Bible tells us, we have to take into account the historical conditions that prevailed when it came into existence and the audience to which it was addressed.

We are told in John 1:18 that no one has ever seen God, and we are told elsewhere that no human has talked to Him. Yet there are various passages in the OT that seem to contradict these teachings. What we must conclude, I think, is that the pre-incarnate person of Christ is present in much of the OT and that it was He that brought the person of God into contact with actual human beings. I choose to believe that this pre-incarnate Christ came to be called Michael, and I refer the readers once again to Revelation 12:7 for the final proof.

John S. Evans

Notes

[1]I particularly recommend “The Angels That Sinned: Slandering Celestial Beings,” which can be found under Satan, Devil and Demons, Wrested Scriptures, http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07/satan/satan. html. I also recommend two other articles that can be found at this link, “2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6—The angels which sinned’ and “Jude 9—Michael contending with the devil.” Similar articles by Cox can be found at http://tidings.org/studypast.htm in articles under the heading “Not Giving Heed to Jewish Fables” appearing in the issues of November 2000, January 2001, April 2001, and May 2001.

[2]Cox, “The Angels That Sinned.”

[3]“Assumption of Moses,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Moses.

[4]“The Apocryphal Books The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch,” http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/.

[5]Cox, “Not Giving Heed to Jewish Fables,” April 2001.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Ibid., “Not Giving Heed to Jewish Fables,” May 2001.

[8]Gleason L. Archer, Jr., “Daniel”, Daniel-Minor Prophets, vol. 7, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1985), 123.

[9]Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, vol. 20, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 277.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Two Peter 2:4-9 state that if God cast angels who sinned into Tartarus to await their final judgment, if He brought a flood to destroy ungodly people in the time of Noah, if He condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, and if He rescued the righteous Lot from the lawless men around him, then He “knows how to rescue the godly from temptation.” The insertion of the conditional if into these verses opens the door to the possibility that Peter did not believe that all of these things had actually occurred. Because Genesis does not present an account of fallen angels but does bring in Noah, etc., I suggest that Peter’s purpose in inserting the ifs was to challenge the idea that angels had sinned.

Hi, John! Just a quick thought or two on this intriguing proposition you've presented here. First, your statement above doesn't necessarily reflect the original intent of the author in the usage of the article translated "if" in the English. I don't know what sort of Greek word study you've performed prompting you to conclude that Peter's usage of "if" in this passage was a mark of uncertainty and doubt on his part...but I, personally, understand his words in a completely opposite sense. The word "if" should probably be more accurately translated "since" - particularly as he uses these propositions as the basis for his concluding clause "...then He knows how to rescue the godly from temptation." Basically, Peter was prompting his readers with factual pieces of their history upon which they were all in agreement in order to emphasize the factuality of the equally real nature of the deliverance provided by God. Make sense? That line of reasoning does to me, anyway. The idea that Peter would use items of doubt and speculation to shore up the conviction that God DOES deliver His People from temptation doesn't add up, to me.

Jer's picture

Hi John:

2 Peter 2:4 is a first class conditional sentence. In Greek Grammar, Daniel Wallace says, "The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument."

He expounds:

"There are two views of the first class condition that need to be avoided. First is the error of saying too much about its meaning. The first class condition is popularly taken to mean the condition of reality or the condition of truth. Many have heard this from the pulpit: 'In the Greek this condition means since.'

This is saying too much about the first class condition. For one thing, this view assumes a direct correspondence between language and reality, to the effect that the indicative mood is the mood of fact. For another, this view is demonstrably false for conditional statements: (a) In apparently only 37% of the instances is there a correspondence to reality (to the effect that the condition could be translated since). (b) Further, there are 36 instances of the first class condition in the NT that cannot possibly be translated since. This can be seen especially with two opposed conditional statements. Note the following illustrations."

Wallace then uses 1 Cor. 15:13 as an example, "But if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised."
He notes, "It is self-evident that the apostle Paul could not mean by the first class condition 'since there is no resurrection'!"

I think Mr. Evans' view is within the possibilities of the grammar. I would also add that the author could be using the Enoch material to illustrate his point, whether it has any basis in history or not. Paul did the same thing with his audience by referring to the writings of Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander. They used the material for their own purposes.

Regards,
Jeremy Lile

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Thanks for the clarification, Jeremy! I understand the potential nuances of the first class conditional usage and sense of "if" - but I still see Peter's concluding clause as setting contextual parameters on that sense. In the case of 1 Cor. 15:13, contextually, Paul was providing the logical conclusion of the "no-resurrection" argument and position using the first class condition. In 2Peter 2:4-9, the rational construct Peter is presenting building towards the conclusion established in v.9 is that all of the "if" statements are expressions of reality concerning which his readers are in more or less unanimous agreement as to their legitimate factuality. Context still guides the sense and usage in this case, as far as I'm concerned.

Islamaphobe's picture

I have no formal training in the study of religion and no knowledge of Greek, ancient or modern. I have to trust translators and those whose work impresses me as being scholarly based on my experience as a scholar. "Ifs" can be used as you suggest, but they can also be conditinoal. I have no doubt that Peter was referring to items of common belief. Based on my overall assessment of 2 Peter 2, however, I am inclined to believe that Peter did not believe that angels had sinned but realized that most of those who would hear his words did. By the way, do YOU believe that angels have sinned? I frankly do not. I may be wrong, but that is my view.

John S. Evans

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Hi, John! Yes, I agree that Peter was referring to items of common belief among those to whom he was writing, thus seeking to confirm and establish that same belief in his proposition in v.9. Concerning whether or not angels are capable of sin...I believe that they are not necessarily perfect like God. I believe that they are capable of error, as they are created beings...and it may be possible that some of the original angels were even capable of "sin" (however that may be defined within the angelic realm and context). Certainly, when some rebelled against God (in alliance with Lucifer), they evidenced a capacity for moral, independent choice and free will. That necessitates the ability to choose between "right" and "wrong". Choosing that which is morally "wrong" equates to "sin". That's my position at present anyway.

JM

Islamaphobe's picture

Thanks for your views. I do not claim to have the last word on the subject of angels! I am inclined, I must admit, toward the view that to sin is human, not angelic.

JSE

Duncan's picture

John,

I agree with Paul (in his comment above) on the following:

"In reviewing this Pt. 2, I was surprised how many qualifiers you made like: “I assume”, I suggest”, “While I cannot be sure”, “I choose to believe, “What we must conclude I think”. John where is your surety in all this subject matter? I’ll choose the old Alexander Campbell maxim instead, “where scripture is silent, we should be silent, where it speaks we should speak.” I’m not even Church of Christ and have not been, so I may have quoted this maxim wrong. My point, “Let the scripture speak for themselves”."

Part of thinking outside the box is knowing when those inside the box are right. I agree with Beale on this one:

"Rev. 12:7 develops Daniel's heavenly imagery of the battle of Michael and the Son of man against the wicked angels of Persia and Greece (Dan. 10:13,21 cf. Dan. 10:16 (Theod), 6, 18 (LXX), 18 (Theod.). In Daniel Michael is closely associated with the Son of man and both are set forth as heavenly representatives of Israel (cf. respectively Dan. 12:1; 8:11 (LXX and Theod.) and 7:13-27). Therefore they are identifies as fighting together for Israel against the forces of evil in Dan. 10:20-21. But they are not the same heavenly being, since the figure of the one in the 'likeness of a son of man' in 10:16 Theod. is distinguished from Michael and because the 'son of man' is portrayed as a divine being (cf. Dan. 7:13 MT with 7:13 LXX) or as equivalent to the angel of Yahweh (so Dan. 10:5-6) who appears elsewhere in the OT. This distinction is carried over into the Apocalypse (see on 1:13-18; 2:18; 10:1).

Michael helps this 'son of man' fight against malevolent angelic forces. On the basis of this evidence, a plausible conclusion is that Michael is a heavenly representative for Israel, as is the "son of Man,' though, in the light of Dan. 10:20, he is subordinate to the 'son of man." GK Beale, Commentary on Revelation 651

To me it is much more powerful to say that Jesus defeated Satan at the time of the cross (the time when the Child is caught up to God's throne (Rev. 12:1-6) and then Michael and his angelic forces do the mopping up (Rev. 12:7-12).

Duncan

Islamaphobe's picture

Duncan,

I claim no particular expertise on Revelation, but I find myself in agreement with those who stick to the preterist viewpoint, either full or partial. I have not read Beale's commentary, which is, no doubt, quite good. But Beale is, I believe, an amillennialist who injects generous amounts of idealism into his analysis of Revelation. I thoroughly disagree with that (Sorry, John Noe), but I shall probably buy a copy of his commentary before the year is out. I am sure it belongs in my library. I have read a little of Beale's work explaining the dependence of Revelation on Daniel 2 and found it persuasive.

In my view, the "mighty angel" of Rev. 10:1 is Christ, and so is Michael in Rev. 12. I strongly disagree with your statement that "Michael and his angelic forces do the mopping up." I am persuaded that Kurt Simmons is correct in insisting that Rev. 12 deals with the early part of Christ's ministry as opposed to the time after the Crucifixion. In 12:4, the dragon stands ready to devour the child as soon as it is born. The child is born in v.5, and the woman flees into the wilderness in v.6. According to Simmons, and I agree, the 1,260 days of v.6 corresponds to "the initial period of the church's persecution in the jurisdiction of Palestine." IMHO as a general rule, the specific events referred to in the latter chapters of Revelation tend to be placed later in time than those of the earlier chapters, but there is much recapitulation.

The bottom line. I think that Michael quite clearly symbolizes Christ in Revelation 12.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

And, of course, if the "one like a son of man" (Dan 7) represents the kingdom of "the holy ones of the Most High" (Dan 7:22), Michael would be the guardian angel of this kingdom. Thus, "one like the son of man" cannot be equated with Michael. According to the New Testament, Jesus is "one like a son of man", God's kingdom personified.

I do not see Christ in Dan 10; I just don't think he would need any help from Michael. (But I am sure that he lets Michael do the fighting, as depicted in Rev 12).

Regards

Th. S.

OSTRALOA's picture

John,

I must again beg to differ once again with your continuation, Is Michael Christ? Pt. 2. It also raises concerns with you being led into your exegesis or eisegesis I should say by a member of the Christadelphian group clearly cultic like the SDAs, Mormons and JW’s. I am going to do my best to chill out as Virgil would suggest, however facts are facts.

In reviewing this Pt. 2, I was surprised how many qualifiers you made like: “I assume”, I suggest”, “While I cannot be sure”, “I choose to believe, “What we must conclude I think”. John where is your surety in all this subject matter? I’ll choose the old Alexander Campbell maxim instead, “where scripture is silent, we should be silent, where it speaks we should speak.” I’m not even Church of Christ and have not been, so I may have quoted this maxim wrong. My point, “Let the scripture speak for themselves”.

Red flag no. 1 is the Christadelphian cultic exegesis. When cult members like in the Christadelphians, SDAs or JWs do exegesis they in turn do a lot of eisegesis too. This I know well by personal experience. The key to combat this is to stay with scripture and the original text and let context and language determine our “exegesis”, yet searching out history clearly on all matters in dispute.

Red flag no. 2 The Book of Enoch is myth? I see you side in this “opinion” with Ed and Jeremy Lile on this. I say the “Sethite view” on Genesis 6 is “MYTH” with evidence. First the text to shut the door on this false view: Gen 6:2 is a textual variant, In the LXX Alex. it states, “that the angels – Gk. “αγγελοις” του θεου” of God having seen the daughters of men”. “Sons of God” and “angels of God” are interchangeable. In other words, they mean the same thing to the scribes in both LXX version and the Massoretic beney 'elohim (בני אלהים), beney ha'elohim (בני האלהים), and beney 'elim (בני אלים) always referring to angels in Scripture.

Now some history behind this false “Sethite view” of Gen. 6, but in brief as not to give too much of my book away on Enoch. The first Christian Advocate of false "Sethite View" – Sextus Julius Africanus, Chronology, Fragment 2. c. A.D. 160-240. No Christian advocated the "new" unscriptural “Sethite view” on Gen. 6 before Celsus had earlier charged the Christians with angel worship. Then Julius Africanus came up with this false notion to provide further spin control. Augustine of Hippo later promoted this false view and was later adopted by even John Calvin and Martin Luther. The Pharisee Akiba circa A.D. 130 is credited being the first “Jewish advocate” shutting the door to truth on Gen. 6, later Julius Africanus becoming the author of the Sethite view for the Christians. [1]. Philastrius later supported Augustine’s incorrect, unscriptural “Sethite view” then labled the Book of Enoch heresy due to the historical “truth” of Gen 6. [2] As for Cox being in favor of the “Sethite view” on Gen. 6, is not surprising and leads him to other interpretation mistakes on the text concerning angels in Scripture. The ‘error’ is old but it’s not scriptural, or make for sound hermeneutics on Gen. 6.

Returning to your arguments for Jesus being Michael in Scripture. In Daniel you ‘assume’ that Dan. 10:5-21 is not one vision of Jesus. It is by the description as you noted in vs. 5-6, but you are avoiding the text speaking for itself by dividing it piecemeal speaking of Michael or Gabriel in the text as Jesus or the man in linen initially addressed. In verses 9, 15, 19 it is still Jesus. Michael is being only mentioned in inference in duties for Jesus over Israel “the best of mankind” i.e. Daniel & chaos which is exactly how your “myth” Book of Enoch describes Archangel Michael’s functions. [3]

Regarding Michael’s judgment n II Peter 2:9 and Jude 9, Michael the archangel in scripture is indeed a messenger of judgment as in Rev. 12:7. You at once ‘assume’ this is Jesus, but the ‘scripture’ doesn’t say it is John. Jude 9 is not Michael giving his own judgment, yet ‘judgment for the Lord”, not making himself ‘the LORD’ or his equal.

You state regarding Jude 9. “Second, I suggest that the reference to “the body of Moses” in Jude 9 refers not to the corpse of the prophet who led the Exodus, but to Joshua the high priest, who was charged with the responsibility for restoring the Jewish faith during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The “body of Moses” is thus to be understood symbolically as referring to keepers of the faith rather than literally. John this is another assumption, the text says what is says and in Greek I might add. II Pet. 2:2 does not say who is being singled out are fallen angels as men, however, II Pet. 2:4 does specifically mention the fallen angels. Regarding and the “Scriptural” truth of Jude 9, is that what it says, “the devil” not a man and it says, “Michael the archangel” not even implying it to be Jesus Christ.

Did the “mythical” Book of Enoch influence “God breathed scripture” Jude 14,15? No, not as a myth, but in reality! I am no liberal, or even moderate conservative, I am a sound conservative even with my holding The Book of Enoch’s as inspired. I also hold as you hold to the unity and original authorship and dating of Daniel. This is even though I maintain the scriptural truth of ‘Grecian primacy’ of Daniel’s fourth kingdom as well as for the entirety of Daniel chapter 11 of which I will go into greater detail in another post. I also hold the “man” in Dan. 8 and 10-12 is Jesus, but there is also reference as well to ‘archangels’ Gabriel and Michael. Your confusing that if you have one, it’s must be the same character in the whole reference. The text doesn’t say the ‘man’ clothed in linen is not Jesus, neither does it say that reference to Gabriel and Michael in the same refers to Jesus Christ. Daniel 7:13 does not describe the “Son of Man” as an angel, neither does the Book of Enoch” say the Son of Man is an angel being careful to distinguish the two. You were correct here in rejecting Gleason Archer’s assessment though. WOW, I gave you one or two there I think!

Daniel 11, well John I can’t wait for my own post! This is totally wrong. You force the fourth kingdom being Rome when in fact the whole reference in Dan. 11:21-45 is historically all about the exploits of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. By the way why would Edom in vs. 41 want to escape out of that vile person’s hands when Herod himself was an Edomite!!!?

At least in Dan. 12:1 you believed, I think, that Michael the archangel was really Michael the archangel! Yet you questioned it though at the end too. I end my reply by agreeing that the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ is present throughout the Scriptures including Daniel, just not the places where your “opinion” led by Christadelphian Steven Cox says Michael or Gabriel the archangels are Jesus Christ. They are archangels of the LORD which they really were and still are in heaven in agreement with that “mythical” fable, Book of Enoch.

I’ll try not to be so hard John next time!. If you stay with the real text and context in your next posting, I’ll make a promise on that!:).

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

Notes

[1] Robert C. Newman, “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4” GTJ, Vol. 5.1 (1984): 13-36 and Richard J. Bauckham, “Jude, 2 Peter,” WBC, Vol. 50. (Waco: Texas, 1983), 51.

[2] Philastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108, circa A.D. 384 from his Catalogue of Heresies (Liber de Haeresibus or Diversarum Hereseon Liber.

[3] Book of Enoch, R.H. Charles 1912 edit., Chapter 20.

Islamaphobe's picture

Paul,

I got up from a needed nap and found your lengthy post awaiting me. With coffee at hand, I shall post a reply. You have far more background as a biblical scholar than I do, but I shall nevertheless muster the audacity to challenge your comments in several respects.

My first observation has to do with your assumption that if I allow myself to be influenced by the writings of members of "cults," then my own observations must be flawed. To my mind, this is an application on your part of the old guilt by association manuever. While I do not consider myself a "cult" member unless associating with preterists carries that connotation, I also have run across some writings by SDAs and Christadelphians that I have found to be quite scholarly. I find that I may be able to agree with a talented "cultic" writer on some particular point without having to accept his views on other points.

You write that you know about cultic exegesis on the basis of personal experience. Well, I'm glad you found your way back to reality, but that comment suggests to me that you may have a tendency toward certitude that is not fully warranted. That this is indeed the case appears to flow from your criticism of me for showing hesitancy in some cases by writing "I assume," "I choose to believe," etc. You obviously know no such uncertainty about your opinions, but I suggest that you should show some. I spent forty years working full-time in academia pursuing scholarly objectivity as best I could, and perhaps I am wishy washy. But there's an old song about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread that I like to hum. You're no fool, that's for sure, but IMHO you could use a good deal more caution.

Anyway, speaking of angels, you know a lot more about the Book of Enoch than I do, and I admit that I have been heavily influenced by the writings of Steven Cox, who is (gasp!) a Christadelphian. One thing I do not see in your comments, however, is a refutation of what Cox has written, particularly with regard to his analysis of 2 Peter 2. Cox also hits the point that the Book of Enoch is not canonical. Now it may be that much of it is not "myth," but I am INCLINED to ASSUME that it didn't make it into the canon for a good reason. There I go again with the wishy washy language.

With regard to my treatment of Daniel 10, I defer to Ernest Lucas, who insists that we cannot be sure just who is speaking to Daniel in parts of that chapter. You know no such uncertainty by asserting the let the text speak for itself refrain. Excuse me for not automatically assuming that you know more than he does. If you are right, it's a good point for the argument Michael is not Christ. On the other hand (There I go again with that acadamese.), it appears to me that if, as you say, 10:5-21 is one vision of Jesus, that means that "Jesus" becomes the narrator of 12:1-4. Scholarly opinion, for what it's worth, generallly assigns all or most of the "angelic"
narration in Daniel 10 to Gabriel.

As for your belief that Daniel 11:40-45 apply to the time of Antiochus IV, I frankly regard that as absurd. On that I am definite! In my book on the four kingdoms of Daniel I tried to dismantle that notion, and I have yet to encounter anyone who has refuted my arguments.

Don't worry about being hard on me. I'm a big boy and learned long ago how to hit back.

John S. Evans

OSTRALOA's picture

John,

Thanks for your kind reply. It was late here in Brazil so I may have been a bit grumpy:). I think we can share a lot with each other without the name calling.

As far as Enoch, I'll stand that's it's inspired as the "earliest" Christians believed. Reagarding Jesus as Michael, he is not. For Daniel, the Grecian view not only Dan. 11, but the entire fourth kingdom scence is Greece and the diodochi showing up then Antiochus IV Epiphanes "Little Horn". Do you take Artaxerses Longimanus and Xerses as one and the same? Just curious.

Thanks again John, we may agree we disagree, with kindness and the the Cross of Christ as our common unity.

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

Islamaphobe's picture

Paul,

I have written a manuscript of about 120 pages on Daniel 2 that I hope to publish before the year is over. In that MS, I do my best to demolish both the Geek sequence (Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece) and what I call the "liberal light" or (better) "modified Greek sequence favored by Moses Stuart and a frequent poster here, Thomas Sachariassen. One of the arguments I use against these two positions with regard to Daniel 2 is that I believe the relative portions of the statue containing each of the five substances of which it is composed should have SOME correspondence to recorded history. Such correspondence exists with the Roman sequence but not with the others. In the Greek sequence, the Median portion (the chest and arms) corresponds to one or two years of actual history; in the modified Greek sequence, the Alexander portion (the bronze belly and thighs) corresponds to about eleven years. As far as I can tell, the advocates of these two systems deal with this problem by saying that they know (somehow) that the statue was not intended to correspond to historical reality. In addition, I must add that in terms of historical correspondence, Babylonia was particularly associated with gold, Medo-Persia with silver, Greece with bronze, and Rome with iron. No such correspondence exists in the alternative systems.

As for the identity of the Persian kings in Dan. 11, my position is that the king who will be richer than the others of 11:2 is Xerxes, and I offer a fairly lengthy analysis of why I hold this position in my book on the four kingdoms.

There obviously is much disagreement among those of us who are challenging the reigning paradigms of liberalism and futurism. My own view is that these dominant paradigms are in the process of caving in and that a very different understanding of Christian theology is (Dare I say it?) emerging. I don't claim to know just what this new system is going to produce, but I do know that I do not have all the answers and that some who apparently think they do are wrong.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

Dear John Evans,

Your argument will not do. There are so many problems with an identification of the fourth kingdom with the Roman Empire, I don't know where to start. Lucas and Gurney have listed some reasons why the "Roman sequence" has to be rejected. The syntax of Dan 8:9 also makes it highly unlikely that there were two little horns in the Book of Daniel.

Second, as I have read your book, I can safely say that you have not been able to demonstrate why the kings of the north and south (Dan 11:40-45) should be identified with kings of other nations than Syria and Egypt (respectively). Your interpretation here is based on eisegesis, not a sound reading of the text.

The oldest interpretation of the Book of Daniel (cf. Qumran, old Syrian), which happens to be the oldest Preterist interpretation as well, does not have Rome as the fourth kingdom. As can be seen from 4 Ezra, your view, which really is a modified historicist schema, with Rome as the fourth kingdom, was established relatively late.

When your study on Dan 2 is out, I will be happy to say more on this.

Regards

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

Thomas,

You sound like a broken record that keeps repeating the same part of a composition. I admittedly have become deaf to these arguments. You insist on emphasizing what you perceive as weaknesses in the Roman sequence while ignoring the weaknesses of the system that you advocate. "The best defense is a good offense" goes a popular maxim, but there comes a time in sound biblical exegesis when defense must be used. You ignore what is inconvenient to discuss. To be fair, we all do that to some degree, but I put you into the above average category in this respect, at least when it comes to Daniel.

I shall repeat my insistence that Dan. 11:40-45 cannot be made to fit the career of Antiochus IV. This is why Collins and other liberals are so sure that 40-45 are false prophecy and that the writing of Daniel 11 can be dated to ca. 164. But you're trying to make Daniel a genuine prophet while ruling out fulfillment in the time of Herod and the first century AD. It won't work, hence your display of cognitive dissonance. I feel the same way about the attempt to force the "little horn" of Daniel 7 to be the "horn that started small" in Daniel 8, though that case is not as hopeless as trying to make 11:40-45 apply to the time of Antiochus IV.

I am inclined to agree, however, that during the interval between the death of Antiochus IV (164/163 BC) and the ministry of Christ, there were attempts made to fit the prophecies of Daniel to a second-century BC fulfillment. That effort was ultimately abandoned by Christians until its revival by Moses Stuart and those who have followed in his footsteps as a response to the rise of the Higher Criticism, which relegated the prophecies of Daniel to the vaticinium ex eventu category. Serious problems with the Greek sequence advocated by the critics, including the little problem that it denies the Messianic application of Daniel 7 to Christ, have led to attempts to find some kind of middle ground between the extemity of a Greek sequence that relegates Daniel to the pious fraud category and the thoroughly Messianic Roman sequence. That middle ground takes the form of either the modified Greek sequence that you favor or the standard Greek sequence with a generous application of typology that allows Jesus to appropriate for His purposes a prophecy whose primary fulfillment occurred in the second century BC. This is the position of the NAB, which "miraculously" finds the Book of Daniel to be Inspired even though it was written in the second century BC and is full of after-the-fact "prophecies."

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

Dear John Evans,

I think I'll repeat the truth until you get it :)

It simply is not true that all scholars think "Dan. 11:40-45 cannot be made to fit the career of Antiochus IV" or some other Syrian king. (You have to remember that in Dan 11, the term "king of the north" is used generic.) I do not share Collins' position on Dan 11:40ff.

You will not find any scholar who is able to put forward sound arguments (based on the Hebrew or Greek text at hand) for a sudden "shift" in the national identity of "the king of the north". What you want us to do is nothing but accepting special pleading: As you are not able to make a natural reading of Dan 11:40-45 fit secular history or your wish of having Daniel's prophecy to be about Herod, you think it is reasonable to assume that the author of Dan 11 suddenly broke common rules of communications. Now, If I say it will be rain tomorrow and the sun shines, I guess you would say that I was mistaken. But of course, if I use a little bit of eisegesis, I can argue that it was sunshine nor rain I really meant...' With this kind of eisegesis you can make any text in harmony with whatever you want. I do not accept this hermeneutic; no scholars do.

Your main reason for trying to prove a modified historicist interpretation of Daniel seems to be that it would save Daniel from the critics' den.

You have never been able to prove that the schema advocated by Stuart is wrong. (Of course, there are errors in Stuart's commentary -- it was written more than 150 years ago. But which commentary is without errors?)

You wrote:

"I am inclined to agree, however, that during the interval between the death of Antiochus IV (164/163 BC) and the ministry of Christ, there were attempts made to fit the prophecies of Daniel to a second-century BC fulfillment. That effort was ultimately abandoned by Christians until its revival by Moses Stuart and those who have followed in his footsteps as a response to the rise of the Higher Criticism, which relegated the prophecies of Daniel to the vaticinium ex eventu category."

Here you are in error. The Qumranites did not try to make the Book of Daniel fit "to a second-century [BCE] fulfillment"; only, based on sound exegeses this is what they realised the text was about -- cf. Devorah Dimant: "The Four Empires of Daniel, Chapter 2 in the Light of Texts from Qumran" (In: R. Elior & J. Dan [eds.]: Rivkah Shatz-Uffenheimer Memorial Volume, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12 (1996), vol. 1, pp. 33-41. This understanding is also reflected in 1 & 2 Macc.

Also, the NT nowhere seems to identify the fourth kingdom in Daniel with the Roman Empire; cf. Dan 13:1f.

It is not true that the oldest interpretation "was ultimately abandoned by Christians until its revival by Moses Stuart and those who have followed in his footsteps" -- what do you base this assumption on? True, the majority of Christians did abandon the Pretersit interpretation in general -- ultimately the majority of (mostly Protestant) Christians accepted either Futurism or Historicism. But traces of Preterism and its true interpretation of the Book of Daniel can be found among ancient commentator also. Before Stuart it was advocated by Preterists like Grotius (Protestant) and Bossuet (Catholic).

All evidence point in the same direction: your modified historicist view is a novelty; in my opinion it is without any real support in the text.

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

Thanks for your opinion. In my opinion, Thomas, further discussion with you is pointless.

ThomasS's picture

Oh well, I am sorry to hear that. I most certainly respect your opinion. I strongly disagree with you, but that does not make me think less of you.

Best wishes!

Regards

Th. S.

OSTRALOA's picture

Thomas,

I have been watching your posts with John and they generally agree with mine. I would like to trade e-mails. I have a ppt. on Daniel I recently finished and I can send you. Do you believe that Xerses was the same person as Artaxerses Longimanus or a different person? John did not answer this question.

I would like to correspond. Please write back. Thanks.

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

ThomasS's picture

Dear Paul,

You may send me an e-mail: thomas_sach 'at' hotmail.com

PS!

I am not sure that I understand your question re: Xerxes / Artaxerxes.

Th. S.

Islamaphobe's picture

Just to set the record straight, I stated that it is my position that the king who will be far richer than the others of 11:2 is Xerxes. That WAS an answer to your question. I am sorry that I did not add that since the Bible mentions both Artaxerxes and Xerxes, that meant I regarded them as different people. I tend to assume that some things do not need to be spelled out.

JSE

Duncan2's picture

John,

I of course agree with you on many of these points (sorry for my nay-saying on other points). If the little horn of Dan. 7 and 8 is the same individual then Daniel is a false prophecy. Daniel 7:19-27 shows the kingdom of God being fully established at the defeat of the little 11 th horn. If that is Antiochus IV and the 2nd cent. BC then Daniel is mistakenly teaching that the kingdom of God would be established in the 2nd cent. BC.

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

You are wrong; just take a good look at the Aramaic in Dan 7. However, IF the fourth kingdom is Rome, why did Rome grew more powerful than ever AFTER 70 CE?

Did horn # 11 die in 70 CE? (Of course, as you are not able to find such a death materialized in history, you will keep on arguing that the evil force behind some [future] Roman emperor died in 70 CE -- I call this special pleading!).

Nice to see that we agree on the identity of Michael, though. Michael is not Christ.

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan2's picture

Thomas,

Here is Daniel 7:24-27

The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. But the court shall be seated and they shall take away his dominion to consume and destroy it forever. Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.

If the little horn here is Antiochus IV then Daniel is teaching that the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the 2nd century BC. Is that what you believe?

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

Only if you insist on wooden literalism. (Do you really insist on taking the language of apocalyptic prophecies literally?) The text only says that the saints would get the kingdom AFTER the fall of the little horn. The text does not say that this would happen immediately after the fall of the little horn. If you insist on a literal interpretation of this kind of language, you will have a big problem with Dan 2.

According to the NT, the kingdom of God was established with the first advent of Christ, ca. ca. 30 years after the fall of the fourth kingdom. This would be in harmony with both Dan 2 and 7. And -- we do not need to invent the existence of two different little horns in the Book of Daniel. Less eisegesis, more exegesis!

Regards

Th. S.

Ransom's picture

I must agree with Duncan here. The context of Daniel 7:24-27 screams "time indicator": the whole "time, times, and half a time" wording is meant to give a time reference for the saints' possession of the Kingdom.

Duncan2's picture

And the end of "a time, times and half a time" was the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7, cf. 9:26-27). The kingdom of God was fully established on earth at the destruction of those who were destroying the Land (of Israel) Rev. 11:15-18.

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

..and before that (= 70 CE), the Roman Empire = the fourth kingdom "was slain and its body thrown into the fire to be burnt up"? ;)

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thomas,

I almost forgot. I wait to here your answer to your own question. You quoted some of Dan. 7:11. What do you say was destroyed (and when) in that verse?

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Dear Duncan,

I think the fourth kingdom should be identified with Egypt/Syria (cf. Dan 11:4-5). Both Syria and Egypt fell before the first Advent of Christ; Egypt fell ca. 30 years before Jesus was born. (The text does not say how long it should take between the fall of the fourth empire and the coming of 'one like a son of man'.)

According to the NT, Jesus had been given all power right after the resurrection (Matt 28:18).

Duncan's picture

I think what you are raising here presents much more of a problem for John than me. John, I know you reject my answer, how would you answer this question?

Some background to my answer can be found here http://planetpreterist.com/news-5255.html "The Spiritual Rulers of Daniel and Revelation" Basically I have written 900 pages on this question but here is the short answer. What was burned up (in the lake of fire) was the beast from the abyss Rev. 17:8; cf. 11:7). A demonic king not a human king (cf. Dan. 10:13).
So is there a connection between the little horn of Dan. 7 and the beast from the abyss? Yes.

1. The little horn/beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11).

2. The little horn/beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

3. The little horn/beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).

4. The little horn/beast has a three and a half year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25; 13:5).

5. The little horn/beast is defeated at AD 70 by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-13, 19-20).

6. The little horn/beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-20).

7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4).

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

It seems to me that one of your main problems is that you would like to identify the fourth beast in Dan 7 with the 'sea beast' in Rev 13. There is no scriptural basis for such an identification; in fact, John seems to imply that they are different.

Of course, you have to argue that the destroyed beast was a "demonic king not a human king" -- as you do not have any human candidate (being killed in 70 CE). In fact (if I am not totally mistaken), your human candidate for "the Antichrist" got more power after 70 than before...

Still, according to Daniel 7, the beast was destroyed before "one like a son of man" received all power; according to the NT, this happened long before 70 CE, not after.

Dan 7 does not speak about a second coming of Christ; the very idea of a second coming is a NT conception.

You seem to read the Book of Revelation as it were a sequel to Daniel, a kind of "The Book of Daniel II". There is no reason for this.

Finally, the Roman Empire was not destroyed in 70 CE. It grew more powerful after 70 CE.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thomas,

You wrote,
"Dan 7 does not speak about a second coming of Christ; the very idea of a second coming is a NT conception. You seem to read the Book of Revelation as it were a sequel to Daniel, a kind of "The Book of Daniel II". There is no reason for this."

Of course there is reason for this. Revelation is clearly drawing from Daniel. Some would say Revelation is reusing Daniel (I wouldn't, I say it is talking about the same events) but I don't see how you can not see the close relation between the two here. Personally I don't think you want to see. Let me share this again.

1. The little horn/beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11).

2. The little horn/beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

3. The little horn/beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).

4. The little horn/beast has a three and a half year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25; 13:5).

5. The little horn/beast is defeated at AD 70 by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-13, 19-20).

6. The little horn/beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-20).

7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4).

Daniel 7:21-22 (and other places in Dan. 7) shows the little horn overcoming the saints and then God comes and the saints inherit the kingdom (your position inserts a couple hundred years between the defeat of the little horn and the kingdom). Revelation shows the (individual) beast (an 8 th ruler, which is what the little horn became when 3 horns were removed before him) overcoming the saints (Rev. 13:5-7); this beast (from the abyss) is defeated by the coming of God (Jesus the Word of God) as the saints inherit the kingdom Rev. 19:11-20:4. If you can't see the direct connections here you need some new glasses.

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

According to John, the beast (from the sea) in Rev 13 is not the same as the fourth kingdom. This is obvious; I am sorry if you do not see it.

Whereas John has reused much from Daniel, there is much more from Isaiah and Ezekiel. But that does not make the Apocalypse a sequel to Ezekiel or Isaiah.

You still have to solve how "one like a son of man" got all power AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire. But, again, perhaps you think Rome fell spiritually in 70 CE (pace John Evans)?

There is no "little horn" mentioned in the Book of Revelation, is there?

(Eisegesis is when when you read something into the text.)

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thank you for your lesson Thomas ("Eisegesis is when when you read something into the text"). Let me give you one: Ignorance is missing a clear connection between two texts. No the term "little horn" is not used in Revelation, the connections between the little horn and beast are there however. Here is a little fuller discussion of the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the individual beast (the 8th king) of Revelation.

"When looking at the Antichrist in Revelation (the beast) there are numerous parallels between the beast and the little horn of Daniel 7. As my position would predict, there are no corresponding parallels between the little horn of Daniel 8 and the beast of Revelation. Consider some of the connections shared by the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation.

1. The little horn/beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11). Three horns are removed before the little eleventh horn making it an eighth horn (ruler).

2. The little horn/beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6). Ladd said the following on this connection: Rev. 13:5-6 “ is based directly on Dan. 7:8, 20, 25. The little horn had a mouth ‘speaking great things’ and spoke ‘words against the Most High.’” brackets mine

3. The little horn/beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7). One could say that this also applies to the little horn of Daniel 8 (v. 24). The time period that the little horn of Daniel 8 destroys the saints, however, (2,300 evening-mornings, Dan. 8:11-14) differs from the time period that the little horn of Daniel 7/beast of Revelation overcomes the saints (see next point).

4. The little horn/beast has a three and a half year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25; 13:5). This is given as “a time and times, and half a time” in Daniel 7:25, it is given as 42 months in Revelation 13:5. It is the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week, the time right before the Second Coming (see next point).

5. The little horn/beast is defeated at AD 70 by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-21). The coming of God in Daniel 7 is shown as the coming of the Word of God in Revelation 19 (v. 13).

6. The little horn/beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-20).

7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4)."

As to your question, "You still have to solve how 'one like a son of man' got all power AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire." the answer is simple enough. I was not trying to dodge it; I am just hesitant to put much more time into this interaction as it is like water off a duck's back. Anyway here is part of it. I go into much more detail in the book (about 7 or so pages).

"It should be noted that Daniel says that he saw visions in this chapter (Dan. 7:1). What is being shown in Daniel 7 becomes clearer when one realizes that at least two different visions are seen.

1. The Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days in heaven (Dan. 7:13-14). This is the AD 30 ascension of Jesus. Revelation will show this coming of the Messiah to God’s throne in the form of a male Child (“who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron”) being caught up to God’s throne (Rev. 12:5). Notice that the reference to seeing multiple visions in Daniel 7:1 is repeated here in 7:13.

2. The coming of the Ancient of Days to earth to defeat the little horn of the fourth beast (Dan. 7:21-22). This is what the NT will show as the AD 70 Second Coming. Revelation will show this coming of God as the coming of the Word of God to defeat the beast (Rev. 19:11-21). In Daniel 7 the Antichrist (the little eleventh horn) becomes an eighth horn (ruler) when three horns are removed before him (Dan. 7:8). This is how the Antichrist (the beast) is shown in Revelation, as an eighth king (Rev. 17:11); he is the evil ruler that is defeated by the coming of God/Christ."

Again, these are two very different events: 1. the AD 30 ascension of the Son of Man to the Father. 2. The AD 70 coming of God to defeat the little eleventh horn. Dan. 7:13-14 is analogous to Revelation 12. It is a flashback to the ascension of Jesus.

Now a question for you: what do you say the beast with the eleven horns was (who were its rulers?), and when was it thrown into the fire (Dan. 7:11)?

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Dear Duncan,

I have never disputed that there are textual and thematic connections between Daniel and Revelation. But I think it is rather naive to assume that resemblance = identity. When John speaks of "Babylon" in Revelation, he didn't mean Ancient Babylon (even if there are plenty of connections between John's oracle against "Babylon the great" and OT oracles against Ancient Babylon. This is pretty basic!

And: Rev 13:1f. makes it clear that the beast from the sea is different from the fourth beast in Dan 7. This has been noticed by several scholars (cf. R. van de Water: "Reconsidering the Beast from the Sea [Rev 13.1]", NTS 46:2 [2000], pp. 245-261).

It is also somewhat strange that you have no problems with identifying the fourth beast (in Dan 7) with the sea beast in Rev 13, whereas you seem to dispute any identification of the little horn in Dan 7 with the little horn in Dan 8.

Your point about the "visions" in Dan 7 is also without merit -- it only demonstrates that you have misunderstood the Aramaic expression. But of course, as the progression of events suggested by by the natural reading of the text does not support your position, you will have to come up with an alternative. (If the text does not support your position, you should change your position instead.)

The natural flow of events suggested by Dan 7 is supported by the dream "visions" (sic!) in Dan 2; the arrival of the stone (= Christ's first advent) is the real course for the downfall of all four empires. But Rome did not fall ca. 4 BCE. (Of course, Rome did not fall in 70 CE either.)

One of many problems with historicism (and futurism) is that it takes Dan 7 to be about the second coming of Christ.

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thomas,

Here is Dan. 7:21-22

I was watching and the same [little] horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

Your "natural" reading of Dan. 7:21-22 is that the little horn overcomes the saints then a few hundreds years happen and then the saints inherit the kingdom. What coming of God is Dan. 7:22 talking about? the 2nd cent. BC? AD 30? AD 70? A future coming? The kingdom of God was fully established on earth not at AD 30 but AD 70 at the destruction of those who were destroying the Land of Israel (Rev. 11:15-18). This is shown in the parable of the wicked vine dressers (Matt 21:33-44). Notice, God comes at the (AD 70) destruction of the vine dressers (the Jews) (cf. Is 5 for background)and then God's the saints inherit the kingdom. It is AD 70 that the saints inherited the kingdom. This is what Dan. 7:21-22 is showing. If you say differently (which you usually do, what coming is Dan. 7:22 talking about, when did it happen?).

Another thing; how does your "natural" reading explain the fact that the judgment is shown in Daniel 7:9-10 cf. Rev. 20:11-15. That comes before Dan. 7:13-14. Does that mean the judgment happened before AD 30. When did the judgment of Dan. 7:9-10 happen?

Daniel is about the establishment of God's kingdom of earth. That is a direct connection with Revelation, not just a thematic connection (unless you want to say Daniel and Revelation are talking about two different world-wide establishments of God's kingdom).

I asked you only one question (in three parts) and you dodged it. Let me ask it again. What does the fourth beast in Dan. 7 with its 11 horns symbolize? What 11 rulers does it represent? When was it thrown into the fire? You seem sure the little horn is Antiochus IV; are you saying his kingdom thrown into the fire at his death?

Duncan

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

Dan 7:16 makes it clear that what is said in Dan 7:17-27 is an explanation of the vision in Dan 7:2-14. I do hope that you are able to see this.

Now, according to Dan 11-13, first the (fourth) beast "was slain and its body thrown into the fire to be burnt up", second "One like a son of man" came "on the clouds of heaven" and "received dominion, glory, and kingship".

In Dan 7:21-22 we have an explanation of vv. 11-13. The texts says that first the Ancient One came (cf. v. 9), then "judgment was pronounced in favor of the holy ones of the Most High".

Thus, what is clear is that the fourth beast was destroyed before "One like a son of man" and "the holy ones" would possess the kingdom. I think Dan 7:13 was fulfilled ca. 33 CE. That leads me to assume that the fourth kingdom was destroyed before 33 CE. All of this would be in harmony with Dan 2.

You, on the other hand, cannot accept that the fourth kingdom was destroyed before the resurrection of Christ. In fact, you make Daniel suggest that after 70 CE, when (according to you), the kingdom of Christ was fully established, the fourth kingdom would continue to grow, becoming more powerful than before. Now, if that is not eisegesis, what is?

Another problem with your interpretation is that you assume that the Book of Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem (only); I disagree.

Daniel was shown that God's kingdom would be established after the fall of four secular powers dominating the Jewish people and the Middle East region.

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thomas,

So you seem to be saying the coming of God in Dan. 7:22 is the ascension? But God is coming in that verse to defeat the little horn (cf. Rev. 19:11-21). You are so evasive it is hard to tell what you are saying.

By the way the sequence I suggest in Daniel is found in Rev. 11-13. In Rev. 11 the beast overcomes the saints (v.7) and then the kingdom is set up on earth at AD 70 (vv. 15-18). In Rev. 12 the ascension is shown (AD 30 or 33 if you like). In Rev. 13 we are back again to the Antichrist (the beast) overcoming the saints (with direct references to the little horn of Dan. 7 and his persecution in Rev. 13:5-7) Apparently Revelation does not see my sequence or connections between the little horn and the individual beast (the 8th king) as frivolous as you do.

OK Thomas, there is a lot more I could say but I have to go. One last time; you are still dodging my question (you are much better at criticizing then providing answers). What was the 11 horned beast (what rulers does it represent) and when was it destroyed? And are you saying the coming in Dan. 7:22 is the ascension? I don't see how; God is coming to earth to defeat the little horn and give the kingdom to the saints in v. 22 not coming to heaven. I do hope you are able to see this.

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Dear Duncan -- and all,

I think we should remember some very important hermeneutical principles:

(1) First, there is absolutely no need to know the languages in which the Biblical texts are written in. Liberal scholars tend to know the Biblical languages, and, hey, we all know what that leads to.

(2) Second, you really do not need to have any formal training in Biblical or religious studies. True, if you want to say something about psychology you should probably have some done some academic studies within this field, but when it comes to reading the Bible, there's no need for that! If you have to back up your interpretation, you just need to read what others have said (in English) and pick and choose what ever seems to support your interpretation. Use the following device: "N.N. made the following observation (which, of course, supports my argument)"...

(3) Do your research on the Internet -- only if you do not find anything supporting your theory, you should try some of the commentaries.

(4) You should ALWAYS be guided by the following religious bias: The Bible cannot be wrong in any way. Thus, if a natural reading supports a reading which may create problems, you should try twisting the words so that they could indicate something else.

(5) Finally, you should never forget: You may always manipulate any given (Biblical) text to meet a certain view of what we feel it should be. It is with this type of 'hermeneutic' that Nostradamus still remains popular to this day. So, if there in the text exists a problem for your interpretation, you can simply say it is a "future" event, or it is "metonymous", or "symbolic", or at least it is "spiritual", or "allegorical", and then you should be able to walk away and believe that you have the only correct interpretation.

;)

Regards

Th. S.

PS!

A similar list could be made for those "liberals" who think that only they know what is the correct interpretation... but it is, of course, easier to see problems with others (Matt 7:3).

Ransom's picture

While I agree with the underlying presentiments of most of your points, the condescension is a bit much, and your sarcasm definitely leaves the impression that you are presenting the opposite of your statements as true. For instance, the (unintended?) implication that the knowledge of the Biblical languages and formal training in theology/Biblical studies are necessary prerequisites for all correct interpretations is overblown.

Surely you would agree that not everyone need have a divinity degree to interpret and apply Scripture. I, for one, would be much happier to see your serious, tongue-dislodged-from-cheek answer to those five points you gave.

And for the record, Duncan is not at all the sort of dolt you described here.

ThomasS's picture

For the record: I wrote this to all of us! I have only studied Biblical languages for a few years, so I really do not think that I am able to make a final judgment on how the Bible should be understood. But strangely, it seems to me that many of those who are most certain about that (only ) they have understood the text correctly, have no training in Biblical languages at all. I find that a bit disturbing. At least, this is how we see it in Europe -- perhaps things are different in other parts of the world?

Th. S.

Duncan2's picture

Thomas,

You spew sarcastic venom and then end with a smiley face and a wink???

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

read the PS! I thought you would understand that I think most of us are guilty of one or more of these "hermeneutical principles". I know I am. If you think you are not, OK. Then I am sorry!

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thomas,

Please don't insult my intelligence any more than you already have. That was clearly directed at me (although the point about web research was directed more at John Evans). You are a pompous bully who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I hope this helps!

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

Thanks! At least you are not identifying me with the beast. And since I am only a "pompous bully", I will not reveal the identity of your candidate for being "the Antichrist". People should wait for your book.

Regards

Th.S.

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

Again, you are wrong. I wish you would take a good look at the text. It's not that difficult.

Dan 7:22a-b (the coming of the Ancient One + judgment in favor of the holy ones of the Most High) = Dan 7:9-10;

Dan 7:22c ("and the time came when the holy ones possessed the kingdom") = Dan 7:13-14.

Your sequence: (1) first coming of one like a son of man, then (2) the fall of the fourth beast/the little horn is not found in the Book of Daniel. This is very important, because it demonstrates how difficult it is to accept your interpretation.

You just cannot point to the Book of Revelation, because here, John has demonstrated that his "beast" is different from the fourth beast in Dan 7. You think John made a sequel to Daniel; but there is no reason to believe this.

It simply is not true that I haven't said anything about the fourth beast in the Book of Daniel. I have, repeatedly I think, argued that according to the Book of Daniel, the little horn = Antiochus IV (cf. Dan 8:9ff.). The fourth kingdom was to be a divided empire (Dan 2:41); the two parts "shall seal their alliances by intermarriage, but they shall not stay united" -- alluding to interactions between the king of the south and the king of the north in Dan 11. Thus, the fourth kingdom should probably be identified with the rival diadochoi Egypt and Syria.

Eventually, all four kingdoms fell because of the arrival of Christ (cf. Dan 2:34-35, 44). Christ was given dominion after the fall of the fourth kingdom (Dan 7:13-14) -- as predicted in the Book of Daniel.

We all know Rome didn't fall before the first advent of Christ (contrary to what is indicated about the fourth kingdom in Dan 2:34-35, 44) and most certainly wasn't defeated before 33 CE or, for that matter 70 CE (contrary to what is said about the fourth beast in Dan 7:11, 13-14).

Rome is mentioned in Dan 11:30 (referred to as "the Kittim"); which, of course, effectively excludes any reference to Rome later in Dan 11.

I guess it is difficult for you now, after finishing 900 p. of a book to think outside the box. But I pray for you that you in due time will be able to look at the evidence afresh!

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan's picture

Thomas,

You seem to be equating Dan. 7:22 with 7:13-14 which you equate with the ascension. If that were right it would seem that vv. 21-22 are saying that the little horn of v. 21 (Antiochus IV in the 2nd cent. BC) is overcoming the saints until God comes at AD 30 (cf. vv 24-27). That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The NT certainly doesn't teach that the saints inherited the kingdom at AD 30 (oh but then again you don't look for the Bible to be consistent).

The question you keep dodging is, who are the eleven rulers of the fourth beast? When was this beast destroyed in the fire? While you are at it you might explain how is it that the first three beasts lives are prolonged into the time of the kingdom v.12? If, as you say, this stuff is not that difficult it should be no problem to answer my questions. So far you haven't.

Duncan

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

Again you are assuming something that I have never stated. I really do not why you do that.

I have given the following chronological order based on the information presented in Dan 7 (both the dream vision [= Dan 7:2-18] and the explanation [= Dan 7:17-27]):

(1) First, the fourth beast/little horn made war against the holy ones and was victorious (Dan 7:7-8, 11a; explained in Dan 7:19-20);

(2) second, the Ancient One arrives with judgment (Dan 7:9-10; cf. Dan 7:22a, 26);

(3) then, the (fourth) beast is destroyed (Dan 7, 11b, 26);

(4) Finally, one like a son of man and the holy ones receive kingship (Dan 7:13-14; 22b-22c; 27).

The parallels are:

Dan 7:9-14 = Dan 7:22 = Dan 7:26-27

The text does NOT indicate that one like a son of man would come before the destruction of the little horn nor that the fourth kingdom would continue to live and grow more powerful after dominion was given to the holy ones.

I am not sure that you will accept that we get an explanation of Dan 7:2ff in the pericope of Dan 7:17ff., but to me that is what the text indicates (cf. v. 16).

Finally, I have several times said that Antiochus IV = the little horn (cf. Dan 8:9ff.). The key to the identity of the eleven kings are found in the Book of Daniel -- cf. Dan 11:5ff. (the kings of the north and the kings of the south) and Dan 2:43.

As to the beast, I think it has a dual focus: it represents both the secular power as such and a single king (cf. the Aramaic in Dan 7:17). I think the fourth beast was destroyed in two ways (before the coming of one like a son of man): first, Antiochis IV died. I guess you know that he died in 164 BCE. The destruction of the secular power (the rival diadochoi) took some time, Syria fell ca. 63 BCE and Egypt in ca. 30 BCE.

Now, from a Christian point of view, the stone (Dan 2) could be identified with Christ (and, thus, correspond to the one like the son of
man in Dan 7). The 'stone kingdom' is the kingdoms of Christ which I believe was to be established during the earthly life of Christ, his
resurrection and ascension (cf. Jh 18:36; Mk 1:14; Mt 12:28; Lk 17:21). The stone, which grew into a mountain, could be seen as corresponding to the mustard seed (Mt 13:31ff.). According to Mt 28:18, Jesus was given all authority in heaven and on earth after the resurrection (cf. Dan 7:14); the very same thought is found in other NT
texts as well (Lk 22:69; Ep 1:20-23; Rev 3:21).

Hope this helps!

Regards

Th. S.

Duncan2's picture

Thomas,

I am not trying misconstrue your position, I am trying to understand it. You wrote:

“(1) First, the fourth beast/little horn made war against the holy ones and was victorious (Dan 7:7-8, 11a; explained in Dan 7:19-20);

(2) second, the Ancient One arrives with judgment (Dan 7:9-10; cf. Dan 7:22a, 26);

(3) then, the (fourth) beast is destroyed (Dan 7, 11b, 26);

(4) Finally, one like a son of man and the holy ones receive kingship (Dan 7:13-14; 22b-22c; 27).”

This would seem to be the sequence you are suggesting (see below). Please clarify where I am misunderstanding you.

1. 2nd cent. BC

2. 2nd cent. BC (?) Do you see 2 judgments? This one and then the one in Revelation (20:11-15)?

3. I am not sure what you timing is here. You seem to be trying to separate the little horn from the fourth beast, but it is the whole beast that is destroyed in the fire not the little horn and then later the rest of the beast (as you seem to suggest).

4. I think you equate this with the ascension (AD 30 or AD 33). Now if you are saying the Ancient One arrived in the 2nd cent. BC. then you are putting about 200 years in the middle of v. 22 (between 22a and 22b). This does not add up.

You still haven’t answered my question. Who are the 11 rulers that make up the fourth beast? You say Antiochus IV is the 11th; who are the first 10?

Duncan

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43