Visions of Daniel

[markedward]

Relationship to the New Testament
Daniel's visions are obviously reflected to some extent in the New Testament, but I disagree with how the New Testament usage of Daniel is meant to be interpreted.

The Beast of the Revelation
John rather clearly makes a connection between the Beast of the Revelation with the 'dread beast' of Daniel 7. But that is not where John stops. He also clearly makes a connection between the Beast of the Revelation with the lion, bear and leopard beasts. All four of Daniel's beasts are alluded to in John's description of the Beast (and in reverse order, for some reason). John is not saying that the Beast is identical to the Daniel's 'dread beast'. Despite the similarities, there are also major differences.

Daniel 7 identifies the 'ten horns' as ten kings, with the primary antagonist being the eleventh 'little horn', heavily implying that they are sequential. The Beast of the Revelation instead identifies the primary antagonist as being its seven heads/kings, while its own ten horns/kings take the backseat as being inferior to the seven head/kings.

Daniel 7 has the 'dread beast' being condemned and slain and burned in the river of fire before the 'son of man' figure even appears in Daniel's vision. The son of man is not given credit for the dread beast's fate. In contrast, the Beast of the Revelation is personally defeated and cast into the lake of fire by Jesus. The courtroom scene only takes place after this has happened.

The Revelation's usage of all four beasts from Daniel 7 (and not just the 'dread beast') is not meant to identify them as the same kingdoms. John is reapplying the imagery from Daniel 7 through midrash; he is giving meaning and relevance to a new situation (Christians being oppressed by Rome) by reflecting upon an old situation (Jews being oppressed by Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Syria).

The Son of Man
Yes, Jesus calls himself the 'son of man', as the Apostles do later on. On a few occasions, this is tied into the son of man 'coming on the clouds of heaven'. What is happening, however, is not that Jesus and his Apostles are saying 'Daniel was talking about Jesus'.

Within the scope of Daniel, the 'son of man' figure is solely explained to be 'the saints of the Most High'. What Daniel 7 says about itself takes precedence over what Christians traditionally assign to the vision. The four beasts are personifications of four pagan nations: Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Syria. The son of man is not an individual, it is the personification of a single nation: Israel.

The image of the 'son of man' is given to Israel to exemplify the nation's role as modelling 'true humanity' to the Gentile nations. True humanity is righteous, obedient to God, and within the scope of Daniel's vision, this is what Israel fulfills through its faithful endurance during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and hence the application of the 'son of man' image. For the 'son of man' to 'come on the clouds of heaven' is explained in Daniel 7 itself to signify God's vindication of the persecuted saints. They overcome their wicked, beastly oppressors through their faithfulness to God.

Jesus, as the Messiah (i.e. King of Israel), is the representative embodiment of Israel. The metanarrative of the gospel of Matthew stresses this point a great deal. Jesus is Israel, as Israel was intended to be: sinless, righteous, obedient to God. Hence, Jesus reapplies Daniel's image of the 'son of man' for Israel to himself. He is true humanity. Add to this, Jesus suffered oppression and persecution from the corrupt religious leaders, culminating in pagan Rome and apostate Israel crucifying him.

At his trial, the high priest asked Jesus, 'Are you the Messiah [i.e. King of Israel]?' Jesus' response, 'It is as you say. And hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Jesus isn't prophesying a second coming here, and he isn't claiming to be the fulfillment of Daniel 7. What he is doing is reapplying the imagery from Daniel to himself. The priests knew Daniel was talking about the vindication of Israel. For Jesus to combine imagery from Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 and reapply it to himself, he was effectively telling the priests that he was their King and would be enthroned soon. But more than this, he was telling them that they had become 'the beast', while he was 'true humanity', the personification of Israel, and that he would be vindicated from their persecution of him.

In short, Jesus and the Apostles already know that Daniel 7 was about events in their past. They are not claiming that Daniel 7 was a prediction about Jesus. What they are doing is using the image of Israel being vindicated by God (the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven) in midrash for Jesus' own vindication by God.

The Abomination of Desolation
The same thing as the above items can be said for this. The 'transgression that causes desolation' (Daniel 8), the decreed 'desolations' (Daniel 9), and 'abomination that causes desolation' (Daniel 11) each refer to the same event: the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (recorded in 1 Maccabees 1.54).

Jesus interprets the 'abomination of desolation' from Daniel's visions in midrash, applying the label to a new event that would take place sometime between 66-70 AD, causing yet another desecration of the Second Temple. The differences between the Daniel's original and Jesus' midrash is apparent. The 'abomination of desolation' from Daniel's visions takes place as an act of persecution from the Syrian oppressors of Israel. The 'abomination of desolation' from Jesus' midrash takes place as an act of punishment from God upon corrupt Judea.

[DurbanDude]

[*]The messenger, from here to the end of the chapter, to recap major events of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' career and character. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) did what he wanted, he was exceedingly arrogant, he was not stopped by religious or moral qualms. (Identical to 'In his own mind he shall become great' from Daniel 8.)

Thank you for your accurate recap of Daniel 11:1-35. I see that you have identified Antiochus as the King of the North from verse 21.
I dont see how verses 36-45 can be about the same man because the new character from verse 36 is enemies of the king of the north and so is not the king of the north. They are therefore two seperate characters:
11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him

[TalonKarrde_X]

1) The four divisions are Greek, not post-Greek kingdoms. I do agree that the Bronze kingdom is Greece, but comparing Daniel 2 to Daniel 7, it appears that the four divisions of Alexander's Empire were regarded as part of the third beast, and not a fourth beast. Which is how the ancient world looked at it, they knew it was Greeks and not locals that ran the four divisions and this brought in the dominance of Greek culture and language to the entire region. So although your view may be possible, Daniel 7 regarded the kingdom of the Leopard beast representing not just one king, Alexander, but also the following four Greek kingdoms. I do believe its necessary to look for another kingdom that followed and conquered the Greek Kingdom to define the fourth kingdom, rather than looking internally at one of the four divisions of the Greek empire.

2) Rome was the kingdom that followed Greece. In 146BC Rome took over the Macedonian Empire, the original base of the Greek empire. In 64bc Rome took over Syria, which was the last surviving section of the Seleucid empire. In 30BC Rome took over the Ptolomeys of Egypt. The Parthians caused the Seleucid Empire to shrink. The Romans destroyed it forever. And so Rome took over from Greece. And so in every case it was the Romans that conquered Greece, not the Syrians. Rome is the more likely candidate for the fourth beast.

3) Only Rome had a clear and well known divided empire. Daniel 2 describes this iron kingdom becoming divided, into the two feet of the statue.

5) I just can't relate the kingdom of the Maccabees to the timing of the beginning of the stone kingdom. God specifically promised faithful Israel that he would protect them if faithful, and not if they are unfaithful. (Leviticus 26). The fact that the romans took over Israel is a reflection of their unfaithfulness, not a reflection of their spiritual growth as the new great stone kingdom. The way you have described the introduction of the stone kingdom is a vast anticlimax in my eyes when Daniel 2 indicates that the stone kingdom would destroy all the other kingdoms suddenly.

I just wanted to point out that I agree with all of this, and that these are good points to show where there are some problems.

[divaD]

and hence the application of the 'son of man' image. For the 'son of man' to 'come on the clouds of heaven' is explained in Daniel 7 itself to signify God's vindication of the persecuted saints. They overcome their wicked, beastly oppressors through their faithfulness to God.

So then, would that mean, as per your understanding, Daniel 7:13-14 is meaning after this victory? If so, then that seems to be more in line with what the text has been saying up to this point. But many conclude that the text leading up to this passage, that that's still future, while concluding that Daniel 7:13-14 is in the past. The way I used to deal with that problem, I just assumed all of it was meaning future, including Daniel 7:13-14. It still seems to me that Daniel 7:13-14 would be in the same timezone as the cpl of verses that are preceeding it. But if that is so, I still feel like the Messiah is all over this passage. But I do somewhat understand where you're coming from, and why you come to your conclusions. The text does seem to indicate that the one like the Son of man equals the saints on high. At this point I'm basically more interested in trying to clearly understand you, rather than trying to argue with you, tho that may happen as well.

[markedward]

I dont see how verses 36-45 can be about the same man because the new character from verse 36 is enemies of the king of the north and so is not the king of the north. They are therefore two seperate characters:
11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him

The text does not necessitate that a new individual is being introduced in verse 36. It is an arbitrary rule imposed on the text, not a rule the text makes of itself. The 'king' of verse 36 is the king of the north. The 'he' whom the king of the south attacks in verse 40 is the king of the north, and the 'he' whom the king of the north attacks is the king of the south.

The various descriptions found in Daniel 7 for the 'little horn', Daniel 8 for the 'little horn', Daniel 9 for 'the prince who is to come' each correspond to parts of the whole of Daniel 11.21-45 (not just 21-35, not just 36-39, not just 40-45, but the whole section) for the 'king of the north'. My belief is that this is because each of these four visions are talking about the same individual and events, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his persecution of the saints and their eventual vindication.

Chapter 7	Chapter 8	Chapter 9	Chapter 11-12
Little horn	Little horn	The prince who is to come	The king of the north
Eyes like eyes of a man	Bold face, one who understands riddles	--	Contemptible person
Put down three kings	Power shall be great, but not by his own	--	To whom royal majesty has not been given; Obtain the kingdom by flatteries
Speak against the Most High	--	--	Speak astonishing things against the God of gods
Made war with the saints and prevailed; Wear out the saints of the Most High	Thrown down the heavenly host and stars; Destroy mighty men and saints	--	Heart set against the holy covenant; Take action against the holy covenant
--	Make deceit prosper	Strong covenant with many for one seven	Act deceitfully
Seemed greater than the ones before	In his own mind he shall become great	--	Exalt and magnify himself above every god
--	Become great as the Prince of the Host; Rise against the Prince of Princes	--	Prince of the Covenant is swept away
Think to change the times and the Law	Regular burnt offering taken away; Sanctuary overthrown	Destroy the city and the sanctuary; He shall put an end to sacrifice and offering	Profane the temple and fortress; Take away the regular burnt offering
--	Transgression that causes desolation	Desolations are decreed; On wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate; The desolator	Abomination that makes desolate
Time, times, half a time (one, two, one-half, or 3.5 years)	2300 morning and evenings (1150 days, or 3.2 years)	For half of the seven (3.5 years)	Time, times, half a time; 1290 days (or 3.5 years); 1335 days (or 3.7 years)
His dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end	He shall be broken, but by no human hand	Until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator	Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him
Son of Man brought to Ancient of Days; Judgment given to the saints of the Most High	Sanctuary will be restored to its rightful state	Seventy sevens ... to anoint the most holy place	The people shall be delivered, everyone who is written in the book

[markedward]

You say none of Daniel is about Jesus and it was all fulfilled 160 years before Christ came, right? How can the following not be about Jesus the Messiah?

The KJV colors the verse in such a way (via capitalization and insertion of definite articles) to point to Jesus. It also heavily botches the dissection of the three time frames of the seventy sevens, effectively making the first dissection (between the 'seven sevens' and the 'sixty-two sevens') completely pointless if nothing historical happened in between them. I believe the KJV is terribly inaccurate in its translation of this passage.

The post you're responding to already contains my response to your above question, but I'll reiterate:

The Hebrew speaks of 'the coming of an anointed ruler'. First, I already pointed out that 'anointed' (Hebrew 'messiah') can apply to essentially any king. Jesus is called 'messiah' because he is the King of Israel, not because the word 'messiah' is a unique title for Jesus. Second, As I showed in the post, King Cyrus is specifically called God's 'anointed' for the purpose of returning the Jews from exile, and decreeing Jerusalem and its temple to be rebuilt, which is what Daniel 9 as a whole, and verse 25 in particular, is discussing.

[TalonKarrde_X]

I had no idea you could use BB-code Table tags. That is awesome.

[markedward]

I disagree. I believe the NT teaches very clearly that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7:13-14.

Just so you're aware, a response to this is included in the post titled 'relationship to the New Testament'.

To summarize what I said there:

The New Testament does not teach that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7.13-14.

As Hosea 11.1 (most people don't go read the whole verse when Matthew 2.15 alludes to it, so they don't see the part that says 'When Israel was a child, I loved him'), as Hosea 11.1 is not about Jesus but about Israel's exodus, the New Testament only sees Jesus in Hosea 11.1 through midrash, not through literal fulfillment. In the same way the New Testament sees Jesus in Daniel 7.13-14 only through midrash, not through literal fulfillment.

Midrash is the method of interpreting new events through similar or parallel events from past Scripture. It was commonplace in the first-century AD, it was entirely acceptable at that time, and is perhaps the most-used method of interpretation in the New Testament by the Apostles.

Hosea 11.1 remains about Israel's exodus even if the image of 'out of Egypt I called my son' is reapplied to Jesus to give meaning to the events of his infancy, and likewise, Daniel 7.13-14 remains about Israel's vindication through the persecution from Antiochus IV Epiphanes even if the image of 'the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven' is reapplied to Jesus to give meaning to the events of his resurrection and ascension to God's throne in heaven.

[markedward]

I had no idea you could use BB-code Table tags. That is awesome.

If you use the 'quote' option on my post, you'll see that I had to add in extra code to make sure each column had even width. Otherwise they get all janky, with the column containing the most text in a single cell being the widest, while the column with the least text in a single cell being the thinnest. Adding that extra code to define the width of the first cell in each column forces the whole column to be evenly distributed.

[quiet dove]

If you use the 'quote' option on my post, you'll see that I had to add in extra code to make sure each column had even width. Otherwise they get all janky, with the column containing the most text in a single cell being the widest, while the column with the least text in a single cell being the thinnest. Adding that extra code to define the width of the first cell in each column forces the whole column to be evenly distributed.

You know that there is a table button now, or is that what you used and added extra code?

[markedward]

The table option doesn't let you specify the width of individual columns, only the whole table.

Column 1	Column 2
If you just insert and table and type into it, the columns are	disproportionate,
depending on whether that column has a cell with more text	than another column.

But...

Column 1	Column 2
If you type in a column	then specify the width of the cells
in the first row (the two cells above that say 'Column 1'	and 'Column 2')
then the entire column for each cell is forced to fit that width no matter how much text is in a cell	thus fixing the entire table.

It helps that I know HTML and CSS and such.

[quiet dove]

I see what you are saying....

[T W Taylor]

Hey DurbanDude, Each time it changes empires it starts with (Its). I count 5 empires, although the fifth is still Rome, but mixed with Israel, same as in Rev 17:10 through 12, with the 10 horns being Israel instead of clay toes. ( that has now happened)

Dan 2:32 (1)"This image's head was of fine gold, -- (2) its chest and arms of silver, (3) --its belly and thighs of bronze,
Dan 2:33 (4) --"its legs of iron, (5) --its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

(1) Babylon
(2) Medes and Persia
(3) Grease
(4) Rome
(5) Rome mixed with clay (Israel)

[Beckrl]

Just so you're aware, a response to this is included in the post titled 'relationship to the New Testament'.

To summarize what I said there:

The New Testament does not teach that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7.13-14.

As Hosea 11.1 (most people don't go read the whole verse when Matthew 2.15 alludes to it, so they don't see the part that says 'When Israel was a child, I loved him'), as Hosea 11.1 is not about Jesus but about Israel's exodus, the New Testament only sees Jesus in Hosea 11.1 through midrash, not through literal fulfillment. In the same way the New Testament sees Jesus in Daniel 7.13-14 only through midrash, not through literal fulfillment.

Midrash is the method of interpreting new events through similar or parallel events from past Scripture. It was commonplace in the first-century AD, it was entirely acceptable at that time, and is perhaps the most-used method of interpretation in the New Testament by the Apostles.

Hosea 11.1 remains about Israel's exodus even if the image of 'out of Egypt I called my son' is reapplied to Jesus to give meaning to the events of his infancy, and likewise, Daniel 7.13-14 remains about Israel's vindication through the persecution from Antiochus IV Epiphanes even if the image of 'the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven' is reapplied to Jesus to give meaning to the events of his resurrection and ascension to God's throne in heaven.

Seems like I wrote a thread about this sometime ago, Here as Typology.

[Beckrl]

Daniel 7 identifies the 'ten horns' as ten kings, with the primary antagonist being the eleventh 'little horn', heavily implying that they are sequential. The Beast of the Revelation instead identifies the primary antagonist as being its seven heads/kings, while its own ten horns/kings take the backseat as being inferior to the seven head/kings.

Daniel 7 has the 'dread beast' being condemned and slain and burned in the river of fire before the 'son of man' figure even appears in Daniel's vision. The son of man is not given credit for the dread beast's fate. In contrast, the Beast of the Revelation is personally defeated and cast into the lake of fire by Jesus. The courtroom scene only takes place after this has happened.

Hi Mark,

Concerning the 'ten kings' of Daniel 7:24 as melek which can be translated as well to royal. What are your thought on this? I've made a thread in your absence about 'King or Royal' Here.