I don't.Originally Posted by The Beginner
This would be like asking why Ezekiel used bodily resurrection language for the return from the Babylonian exile in chapter 37 when he wasn't expecting people to literally bodily rise from the dead at that time. It's metaphor for national restoration. Ezekiel saw national restoration, so he used bodily resurrection language. Same thing with Daniel.2. The "wise" in Daniel 11:33-35 that "fall by captivity, sword and flame ad plundering" were people that were literally killed or were persecuted by Antiochus' regime. So how is it that the "wise" that "rise from the dust" are not people who literally rise from the dead?
I see Scripture (particularly in some Psalms) mentioning here and there the idea of God's love for his people being so great that not even death could stop them from experiencing his love... which is definitely grounds for resurrection (i.e. God's overturning death so his people could experience his love), but outright 'resurrection', perhaps only briefly in Daniel (the very last couple of verses).Since none of the passages that you mentioned speak of a future bodily resurrection in your opinion but only a national restoration, do you believe the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age was referred to directly in the Old Testament at all?
The definitive concept of 'resurrection' came about after the Babylonian exile, after all of the Hebrew Scriptures had been written... with the possible exception of Daniel (which, in the view I somewhat lean toward, the book was written shortly before or during the Maccabean Revolt, but the contents would trace back to the historical Daniel).If not, where did the idea come from and how did the Jews, Pharisees, disciples and others in the New Testament get the idea?
I would speculate that the Jews, having their Scriptures using bodily resurrection language as metaphor for national restoration, and also having their Scriptures depicting God's love as being so great that not even death could come between him and his people, would have certainly been yearning, searching for a meaning on this. In the so-called 'intertestamental' period, God inspired the people, revealing to them 'resurrection'... that God's love would literally overcome death and raise his people to eternal life.
The text doesn't explicitly state that he would die in Israel, but I agree that it is difficult to interpret in full accordance with my position. Either way... I take it on faith. (Oh, God no, anything but taking Scripture on faith without absolutist evidence! Seriously.)I am curious to know how you interpret Daniel 11:36-45 as Antiochus Epiphanes, especially since verse 45 signifies him dying once he sets up his camp in Israel. From History, we know that Antiochus Epiphanes did not die in Israel...
The rest of the interpretation I find to be far too strong, far more consistent with the internal context (the text never indicates a massive leap of thousands of years between verse 35 and 36), the historical context (everything else in 36-45 perfectly fits Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as well as the various other visions in chapters 7-9 that corroborate the details), and how the Jews themselves interpreted the text (the different books titled 'Maccabees' repeatedly look to the visions of Daniel, particularly that of chapter 11, including verses 36-45, as having been fulfilled with Antiochus IV Epiphanes and that events at that time).
'Continuous stream of thought' would be not breaking chapter 12.1-3 off of chapter 11.36-45. 'Continuous stream of thought' would be not breaking chapter 11.36-45 off of chapter 11.1-35. And yet everyone does this anyway. I don't think the person who snaps the 'continuous stream of thought' of Daniel 11.1-12.3 in half , separated by a gap of several thousand years without any indication from the text doesn't have the justification to wonder over an apparent 'break' someone else does. It's a double standard.How can you not interpret verse 13 the same way as verse 2? Why would Daniel's resurrection be literal and the "wise" remnant "rising from the dust" be symbolic when only separated by a few verses... It seems like a continuous stream of thought IMO...
To answer your question... it simply is what it is. Chapter 11.1-12.3 is one whole, continuous stream of thought, and as such 12.1-2 must be interpreted in the same context as 11.36-45, which must be interpreted in the same context as 11.1-35. The whole thing is about the coming of Alexander, the splitting of his kingdom, the rise of the Seleucids (in Syria) and the Ptolemies (in Egypt) from the remnants of Alexander's kingdom, their centuries-long feuding, culminating in the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his persecution of the saints of Israel amidst his arrogant attempts at conquering Egypt and other lands, including his desecration of the temple in Jerusalem, and ending with the subsequent liberation of the Jews from their Syrian oppressors, bringing an end to the spiritual exile Daniel had been told about by Gabriel in chapter 9, and hence, bringing about a national restoration / resurrection of the people.
If 12.1-3 does have literal bodily resurrection in mind (apparently paralleled by Daniel's commendation at the end of the book), it is remote and secondary to the contextually more relevant topic: God's restoration of Israel in light of its spiritual exile that ended with the Maccabean Revolt.