This post was originally attached to the thread about ‘Yoder on Paul and Protestantism’. Kingjames1 raised a question about the nature of the judgment represented by the destruction of Jerusalem:
Yet in the destruction of Jerusalem, the righteous along with the wicked suffered and died (e.g., it is doubtful that all Jewish Christians in the city escaped the catastrophe). But if this is God’s final recompense for men’s deeds, surely this cannot be!
Whether or not some righteous people died in the war is a little beside the point. That reflects our modern preoccupation with the fate of individuals. In biblical thinking it is the fate of the people or nation or community that comes first. I don’t know of any evidence that Jewish Christians died during the war, but we can probably assume that righteous Jews did.
AD 70 was God’s final recompense for Israel’s persistent rebelliousness - not for the sins of all mankind.
You need to be more specific about the evidence for an Old Testament belief in a final judgment that transcends historical events of judgment on either Israel or the enemies of Israel. I certainly don’t see it Deuteronomy 32. Are you sure you’re not imagining things? Where is ‘wrath’ or ‘day of wrath’ or ‘day of the Lord’ used in the Old Testament to describe a final, transcendent, post-historical judgment?
I see no problem in reading 2 Thess. 1:6-10 in a historical sense, as referring to the destruction of a community or society or culture - though I’m not sure I see the connection with Israel here. Are you supposing that those persecuting the Thessalonian Christians are Jews? Is that likely? Opposition began in the synagogue (Acts 17:13), but from 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 2:14 it seems more likely that Paul has Gentiles in view.
My argument would be that 2 Thessalonians 1-2 essentially speaks of God’s judgment on a culture hostile to the church that is summed up in the figure of the man of lawlessness, the Antiochus-like opponent of YHWH, who in one way or another is effectively the Roman emperor who makes himself a god.
Re: Justification by faith and the narrative context
I think this is another example of a ‘Stendahlic’ false dichotomy and oversimplification. The preoccupation with the fate of individuals in the midst of national judgment was on the forefront of the ancient mind:
"Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing— to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it," etc., etc."
The entire emphasis on God’s ultimate judgment is the responsible individual - "the soul that sins shall surely die," cf. Ez.18. The Law itself comprehended not merely the obedience of the nation per se, but also that of the individual within it (cf. Dt.29:14-21; 27:15-26; etc.). Again, the concern of the vindication/salvation of the righteous among the judgment of the wicked is a predominant one throughout the prophets (e.g., the concept of a righteous remnant within an apostate nation, as found in Isaiah and Jeremiah).
The principle of judgment based entirely upon the "deeds" of the individual is constant throughout the Old and New Testament (e.g., Ecc.12:13-14; Ez.18:30; 33:20; Ro.2:5-10; 2Co.5:10; Rev.2:12-13).
As far as examples of the "day of the Lord" transcending the immediate historical referant contemplated by the prophecy, there are many. Perhaps a classic case is the book of Joel. One the one hand, the day of the Lord clearly speaks of an imminent judgment against Israel (e.g., 1:15, 2:1, 11ff., though scholars debate to whom the "army of locusts" refers, whether Assyrian or Babylonian forces). On the other hand, it is clear that "the day of the Lord" discussed in 2:28-32 (not to mention vv.18-27) has an altogether different referant/fulfillment, as is evidenced in Peter’s "this is that…" pronouncement of Acts 2:16ff.
As far as the day of the Lord having a suprahistorical character, this is more a conclusion drawn from the so-called ‘apocalyptic’ language which couches and colors its usage in the OT (and new). To read this is as merely metaphorical coloring, having purely mundane historical reference, I think, undermines the very genre of apocalyptic. There is prophetic poetry, obviously, which does have an apparantly strict historical, imminent sense. But the strong, cosmic language of apocalyptic, though not literal in a wooden sense, nevertheless is intended to point us beyond the historical frame to the ‘heavenly realities’ which contextualized and gave meaning to the ebb and flow history in the Jewish consciousness. Again, your suggested interpretation contradicts the Jewish understanding/reading of the apocalyptic genre and eschatology of the Prophets, as reflected in much of second temple literature.
Going back to the Song of Moses, the language of cosmic dissolution and conflagration (e.g., Dt.32:22) , I think, is saying more than: God is really mad and will punish you through the Philistines, et al., Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. Such language suggest more, and in doing so, anticipates the apocalyptic writings of the latter prophets (large sections of Ezekiel, parts of Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah, etc.).
Take for example the biblical doctrine of resurrection from the dead. This is not apparent, at face value, as the blessings entailed in the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis, or as the postive sancation of the law-covenant in Deuteronomy. Yet, the poetic language of Moses does anticipate it (e.g., Dt.32:39), I think, and even adumbrates the fuller revelation of God on the Abrahamic blessing of "life", as it was continuously unfolded w/in redemptive history. Resurrection is a picture of national restoration in Ezekiel 37, and yet even there points to a supernatural (call it ‘metaphysical’ if you like) resurrection of the dead through the Spirit of life, explicitly affirmed at the end of Daniel, and clearly annunciated and expounded by Christ in his teachings (e.g., Jn.5, which, together with chpp.3-4, I believe, has strong and suggestive resonance with Ezekiel 36-37) and the apostles. In otherwords, in isolation from later revelation, I might buy a purely mundane historical interpretation of Moses’ ‘swan song’, but taken in light of the whole record of revelation, I cannot disentangle it from the transcendent, eschatological hope of the covenant fulfilled in Christ.
Whomever he has in view specifically, 2Thess.1:6-10 manifestly speaks in the language of ultimate judgment, not historical catastrophe. "Cut off from the presence of the Lord" makes no sense in reference to a pagan community hostile to the gospel. In what sense does their geo-political destruction cut them off from the presence of the resurrected Christ? In what sense has Christ appeared to be marveled at by the saints? And when did this happen? Are you thinking of an historical event when Thessalonica was destroyed? Was there fire, angelic descent, and the glorification of all the saint? This just seems to push the language beyond any meaningful sense into sheer nonsense.
This seems like quite a stretch to me. It is extremely vague, with no particular historical personage in view. Yet clearly Paul had such a person in mind - indeed, that is the whole point of his argument: you’ll know these things when the man of lawlessness is revealed…i.e., be made known. Moreover, the coming of Christ painted here is not some mere providential collapse of political entities, no matter how great- a secret coming, invisible to the naked eye, but, rather a visible coming (seen by all the saints), splendorous ("the splendor of his coming"), dramatic (fire and angels), etc. I just don’t think this dog will hunt. By this coming and glorification of Christ with His people, God and His righteousness is publically and universally vindicated. But its difficult to talk about vindication when no one is aware of it - i.e., that that is the true meaning of Rome’s collapse (or some minor attack in a Roman province).
Wrath and the Old Testament
I did think about that business with Abraham when I made that comment. It’s a good observation, but I don’t see it as a false dichotomy - my point was that very often the fate of the group is at the forefront of the biblical argument when we tend to look for a universal and individualized application. This is a not an absolute distinction - it is a question of where the emphasis lies in an argument. In Romans, I think, the argument about wrath and salvation must be read in the first place with regard to the story about Israel. The implications for the individual are drawn from that.
It’s interesting that those verses you quote about individual responsibility for sin nevertheless speak about the concrete death or destruction of the one who sins, notably within the context of judgment on the whole nation. This is true, for example, in Deuteronomy 29:16-24: the whole land suffers because individuals within Israel sin. This is conceptually relevant to Paul’s argument: the nation faces destruction because of the sins of individuals within the community. The ‘wrath’ of God against Israel because of sin is expressed as historical destruction. So even when we bring the individual into view, we still find ourselves having to deal with the historical fate of the nation.
The passage from Joel speaks of an outpouring of the Spirit that will accompany the destruction and restoration of the people of God. That is exactly what Peter has in mind. The Pentecost experience is a sign that the ‘crooked generation’ of Jews (Acts 2:40) will be destroyed but that a new people of the Spirit will emerge. This all makes good historical sense. Peter is not talking about a final judgment. He uses the prophetic language in exactly the same way that Joel does. We don’t have to take their metaphors literally!
Your comment about Deuteronomy 32:22, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, seems historically naive. For a start, the language is directed against Israel, not against the whole cosmos. Is God going to dissolve the whole universe just to punish Israel? It is poetic language in a poetic text that expresses the intense ‘wrath’ of God towards a sinful people. I am not persuaded that later apocalyptic uses this sort of language in a fundamentally different way, but even if that were the case, it is very misleading to suggest that this poetic text ‘anticipates’ later apocalypticism. But as I say, I see nothing in the biblical prophets to suggest that they conceived of a transhistorical ‘wrath’ of God. The focus is always either on Israel or on the specific enemies of Israel. The apocalyptic framework is historical.
Deuteronomy 32:39 has nothing to do with resurrection. It simply has to do with human health and welfare. The statement would be better translated ‘I kill and I keep alive’ (that is the force of the hiphil of the verb); it is a simple parallel to the second statement ‘I wound and I heal’. The same thought is found in 2 Kings 5:7 but here it is the king of Israel who, presented with the sick Naaman, asks, ‘Am I God, to kill and to keep alive…?’ This strikes me as a prime example of how we distort scripture in order to justify our traditions.
Daniel 12 provides no support for your argument. When Antiochus launches his assault on Judaism, there will be a great conflict; at that time the people will be delivered (ie. the nation will survive politically because of the faithfulness of the saints of the Most High); many of those who are dead (presumably as a consequence of that conflict) will be raised (not all the dead), some to everlasting life, others to everlasting contempt. Again, this resurrection is located historically, in the story about Israel; Daniel is not describing a final resurrection of all the dead.
Nothing you have pointed to in the Old Testament suggests a transcendent, supramundane manifestation of the ‘wrath’ of God. But this argument that the song of Moses must be re-interpreted in the light of later revelation seems to me really bad exegesis - in fact, eisegesis, a reading into the text of ideas that simply are not there, and which derive, in fact, not from scripture at all but from the dogma of the church. This is why we need a narrative theology that will allow statements and arguments to stand where they are in their literary and historical without having to bear the burden of later meanings.
By the way, if this comes across as rather too vehement, I apologize. I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss these matters.
Re: Wrath and the Old Testament
I would agree that the individaul’s sins have impact and implications for the community (i.e., the ‘consenting adult,’ or two consenting adults, etc., is a moral myth). But it would seem that the individual is particularly separated out in that judgment: v.20 "The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. 21 The LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for disaster, according to all the crses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law."
Again, I think Ez.18 is decisive on this issue, dealing explicitly with the question at hand.
Yes, on the ‘day of the Lord’, which has been discussed in chpp.1-2, describing (at least) the historical judgments against Israel/Judah via Assyria/Babylon. So the point stands: the day of the Lord has both immediate and eschatological reference.
So the ‘this is that’ fufillment is really not a fulfillment of Joel, but a similarity to the principle of judgment as articulated in Joel?
You’ve apparently generalized "the day of the Lord" here into a principle, and thus made it ‘suprahistorical’: the judgment/vindication of the people of God. But Joel’s reference is specific and historical (which includes the eschatological "latter days"). Again, it seems to me that my argument still stands.
I disagree about the context. It is cosmic, that is, universal. The Gentiles are part and parcel of this picture, both as audience, as enemy, and as fellow ‘rejoicers’ w/Israel. This is Moses’ prophecy of the ‘latter days’, which blurs together all the historical judgments against Israel, from entering the land under Joshua, through the cycle of judgments under the judges, to oppression of the Philistines, Moabites, etc., and the exilic judgments under the Assyrians, and Babylonians, etc. , culminating in the final vindication of Israel, inaugurated by Christ (Ro.15:8-12), and consummated at the end of the "last days" (cf. Dt.31:29). Consider just the historical breadth of Moses’ vision in Dt.32! Its a panaroma of Israel’s entire history, from beginning (in the Exodus and wilderness wanderings) to the end (eschaton). Thus it is manifestly clear that Moses’ prophecy here does not have any one, particular historical referant.
I do think that Moses here (Dt.31-32; cf. 30:1-6) contemplated ‘eschatology’, as historically (ha ha) understood in Judaism and Christianity. And I think later apocalyptic literature further develops this (teleological) view of history.
It is historical, indeed, but also suprahistorical - it frames and therefore transcends history. That is the very function of the genre - to draw back the curtain of history, as it were, and push up against eternity.
Neither did the promise of Abraham’s offspring, and yet, Paul sees a deep correspondence with the promise of resurrection, does he not (Ro.4)?
Based on that parallel (not "I wound and I keep healthy"), it would seem rather to be better renderd, "I will kill and I will make alive." [The NIV renders the similar 2Ki.5:9, "Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life?"]. Also the verb is a piel form, not hiphil. But I won’t quibble over such a fine point. I certainly don’t rest any doctrinal truths upon this particular verse. I would merely point out that the broad concepts of the sovereignty and power of God to take and give life provide the necessary theological and covenantal basis for the hope of resurrection, further developed in later revelation.
So you say, and have said before, but I am not persuaded to abandon the traditional understanding of the text. I do believe in two resurrections, one of the righteous and one of the wicked dead (ever see that film, "Evil Dead," btw?). "Many" may be taken in reference to the righteous in particular: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life…" The NIV renders it "multitudes". Whatever the case, I don’t see it as necessarily restricting the scope of the general resurrection (the righteous and the wicked) to a subset of the dead.
Moreover, I do not read the crisis of Dn.12 as the same as that perpetrated under Antiochus Epiphanes. It is clearly historically unique (relative to the eschatologically bounded history of Israel), as the language of 12:1 would indicate. The same language is employed by Jesus in the Olivet discourse to refer to the crisis to come, in which He specifically references the "abomination of desolation" from Daniel’s vision. I.e., Antiochus Epiphane’s ‘abomination’ did not exhaust Daniel’s prophecy of the latter days. And, as I see eschatological dimensions to Jesus’ discourse as well, that final vindication is yet future, and suprahistorical (i.e., at the end of history). Certainly the elements Jesus describes in his prophecy did not all appear to actually take place in AD 70.
Yet, that narrative must be the overarching biblical narrative, i.e., it must be canonical (not merely limited to the canon, but inclusive of the whole canon). Therefore, later revelation will colour how we interpret earlier revelation. This is not necessarily eisegesis. It is, if done correctly, canoncial exegesis, and crucial for the proper interpretation of Scripture. It is the rule of faith at work: Scripture interpreting Scripture. In fact, we must read Dt.32 with Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Luke-Acts, Revelation, etc., in mind.
Re: Wrath and the Old Testament
Going back to the Daniel 12 prophecy… you write:
When did this partial resurrection happen, in your understanding? In the days of the Maccabees? Can there be a somatic, spiritual resurrection (i.e., not merely a ‘resuscitation’ of the dead) prior to the inaugurating, eschatological resurrection of the glorified Christ (1Co.15)? If not, if the resurrection of the dead occurs after Christ (as Paul’s eschatology would demand), then Daniel’s prophecy extends well beyond the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes.
Moreover, despite Roman and later European antisemitism, the history of Israel continues to this day — the story ain’t over, yet.
Resurrection and eschatological crisis
In a sense it is not the task of the exegete to say when a prophesied event actually happened. The text quite clearly connects the unprecedented ‘trouble’ and the limited resurrection temporally with the events of Antiochus’ infraction: ‘At that time… there shall be at that time…’. This is a resurrection of Israel’s dead: the righteous are those who remained faithful to the covenant during the crisis (cf. 11:32-33); the wicked are those who out of fear forsook the covenant (cf. 11:30).
But the key point to note is that at this time ‘the people are delivered’ - that is, Israel will survive because Michael will fight for them (12:1). (The word for ‘delivered’ is used in just this sense in Daniel 11:41 for the escape of Edom, Moab and most of the Amonites from the attack of Antiochus.) Daniel does not imagine history coming to an end at this point: he expects the people of the covenant to survive the crisis and to continue to exist historically. The vindication of those who die during this period (and the punishment of those who are unfaithful) is conceived as part of the crisis.
I’m not sure that an actual resurrection of the Maccabean martyrs conflicts with Paul’s theology of resurrection. What about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? What about the saints who are raised in Matthew 27:52? It could be said that Christ is the ‘firstfruits’ of those who are raised as an outcome of the greater eschatological crisis faced by the emerging church.
But even if we say that Daniel’s prophecy overreaches the Maccabean debacle, my argument would still be that the New Testament sees its fulfilment in the greater and decisive crisis of the ‘coming of the Son of man’ - the vindication of the suffering community in Christ that confronted the supreme Antiochus-like opponent of YHWH. Resurrection, according to the Daniel paradigm, is conceived as God’s response to historical crisis, but again the basic assurance embedded in the paradigm is that God’s people will survive as a historical entity: they will not be wiped out by the power of pagan Rome.
The fact that Israel’s story continues is neither here nor there. It is those who have faith who inherit the promise to Abraham and, with that, the assurance that God will vindicate them (in life or in death, as Paul argues in 1 Thess. 4:13-18) when they face persecution.
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
Exegesis should be in dialogue with context of the world outside the text; if it isn’t, somebody needs to raise the question of whether the text actually has any reference to the world outside of itself. Some postmodern discourse denies such a connection, of course, but thankfully that hasn’t been the case here.
Had there been a second century B.C. resurrection of the dead on the scale of Daniel 12, it would have been astonishing that such a remarkable fulfilment of prophecy occurred without anybody noticing it - or even suggesting it until now. (Something similar might be said of a supposed 1st century A.D. physical resurrection of the dead in Revelation 20). Physical resurrection of bodies is the only possibility allowed by the text in view of the historical meaning of resurrection in the Maccabean/Hellenistic conflict, so we cannot resolve the issue by appealing to a metaphorical interpretation.
I also question whether ‘delivered’ in Daniel 12:1 can mean a purely 2nd century B.C. deliverance in the light of history as it actually occurred, and if some of Daniel 12 can relate to 1st century A.D. distress leading up to AD 70 and maybe Roman persecution, the resurrection of the dead is much more naturally explained as an as yet unfulfilled event - especially in the light of the teaching of Jesus in John 5:25-29.
These points may be debatable; it is not debatable that much of the language of Daniel is taken up in Matthew 24 and Revelation - and reflects on what Andrew calls “the crisis of the ‘coming of the son of man’”. In these terms, there was such a crisis. In the synoptics and Revelation, it is possible, but increasingly difficult, to insist that the crisis is purely 1st century. Andrew is not a lone voice here, but others who have so insisted have not been historically the majority voice in the faith community.
The crisis of the destruction of the temple and events surrounding it are part of the total narrative, but a question being raised is where the weighting of the narrative actually rests. A weighting towards the ‘coming of the son of man’ version of the narrative tilts the story away from a weighting in which the whole history of Jesus has his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead as its centre and climax. These are written large in almost every paragraph of Paul’s letters, and the emphasis of the gospels speaks for itself. On these grounds, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue for a ‘coming of the son of man’ 1st century crisis as an adequate paradigm and foundation for interpreting NT history and teaching.
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
The Hebrew word translated ‘delivered’ in Daniel 12:1 is used consistently in the Old Testament to speak of escape from a situation of danger. It is used in Isaiah 49:24-25, for example, for the escape of captives from a tyrant. In Jeremiah 51:45 the Jews are urged to flee from Babylon, to ‘deliver’ themselves from the fierce anger of God’s judgment on their enemies. Daniel uses the word only twice, here and just a few verses earlier in 11:41, where it refers unequivocally to the fact that when Antiochus attacks and enters the ‘glorious land’, that is Israel, tens of thousands will be killed, but Edom, Moab and most of the Ammonites will be ‘delivered’ - they will escape destruction at his hands.
So when we are told, as part of the same set of historical events, that ‘at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book’, the presumption must surely be that Daniel has in mind the deliverance of righteous Jews from death at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes. This deliverance is conceived, in the first place, in historical terms as the survival of the nation, analogous to the survival of the Edomites, etc., but those who are killed in the course of this unprecedented crisis (ie., the Maccabean martyrs) will be raised to everlasting life.
How we deal with that theologically is another matter. There is certainly the re-use of the typology in the New Testament to give hope to God’s people in Christ who face the much greater and more protracted crisis presented by the opposition of the Roman emperor who styled himself as ‘son of god’ and ruler of the whole world. Perhaps one could argue that the whole incident with Antiochus was a prophetic anticipation of the later confrontation with Rome - that way, we would not need to look for a real resurrection of the dead in the second century BC. That would also allow us to retain a certain metaphoricity in Daniel 12:2.
What, I think, we should resist is the temptation to twist or revise this text in order to make it fit subsequent theological constructions. John Goldingay’s Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel is worth reading. He explains very clearly how 12:1-3 is part of the same historical fabric as the preceding account of the invasion by Antiochus.
I would say this equally for John 5:25-29. Jesus is not talking to the whole world here - our universalizing perspective is alien to the narrative. He is speaking to Israel facing judgment; only those who trust his course of action will arrive at the life of the age to come (5:24). His comments about resurrection echo Daniel 12:1-3 and the general narrative of the Son of man, which is a story about Israel facing political-religious crisis and the vindication of those who remain faithful to the covenant. I repeat the point: resurrection is understood here as something that happens in response to a historical situation in which God’s people are threatened with annihilation.
My argument would then be that it is the resolution of this whole narrative (a narrative that is summed up and anticipated in the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection) that provides the basis for ecclesiology and mission. In Daniel the figure of the Son of man stands for a community under assault from extreme paganism. My argument is simply that the New Testament uses the symbolism in exactly the same way to define its own circumstances and hope of survival. We are the heirs of that narrative of survival.
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
Andrew - I wouldn’t dream of wanting to twist or revise the text to make it fit subsequent theological constructions! I’m very happy for the whole of Daniel 11:36-45 to Daniel 12:1-4 to fit within a 2nd century B.C. context - and if John Goldingay has found a way of fitting Daniel 12:2 entirely into a 2nd century B.C. framework, so be it. If it’s good enough for him, it’s probably good enough for me. Thanks for the recommended reading.
I also found your comments about the 70x7 years (must have been in the response to KJ1) very apposite - since they contain, from a NT interpretive standpoint, a kernel of how Israel’s history as concluded in Jesus was not to be a recapitulation of her past. Highly significant, I think, for a modification of the judgement/vindication pattern which determines a great deal of your own exegetical thinking.
My broader observation about rigorous application of the ‘coming of the son of man’ paradigm still stands. In John 5:25-29, as in any exegesis, we first have to know how it was God’s word to them (the Jews in context) before it becomes God’s word for us. In practice, the exegetical process here makes very little difference to its application today - it has universal significance; we don’t need to jump through the hoop of historical contextualisation (though we can if we like).
My concern still stands about the weighting of interpretation which attends the COSM paradigm. Of course Jesus’s death and resurrection find their place within the paradigm - but they do not have the weight which I find given in the gospels and the rest of the NT - Acts and letters. Why do we find so much explicit and implicit reference to them, and far less to a supposed vindication of the son of man in AD 70? (Don’t answer that - it was a rhetorical question - I couldn’t bear opening up another game of theological ping-pong!).
BTW this is not a ‘let’s gang up on Andrew’ session - I’m genuinely enjoying the exchanges, and added my comment only while there seemed to be a lull in the proceedings.
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
Ah, but that rather begs the question. If Jesus is talking specifically about Israel’s crisis in the first century according to the Daniel paradigm, then it does not become God’s word to us in the same way that it was God’s word to Israel. For us it is history - extremely important and formative history, but history nonetheless. Jesus’ words, therefore, would not have ‘universal significance’ in the sense I think you mean. They have particular and contextual significance within a narrative to which we must relate indirectly. I would say that exegesis makes an enormous difference to application.
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
But does it? If there will be a universal resurrection anyway, does it have much relevance to those being resurrected (or hoping to be resurrected) to know that Jesus addressed specific historical issues to do with the Jews in John 5 in the 1st century? Because of my standpoint, I don’t think it does. Because of your standpoint, you think it does.
I appreciate your use of the phrase ‘beg the question’ as it should correctly be used, and not as ‘raises the question’, as it is commonly used. How about a separate thread on pet irritations over common use/misusages of English?
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
Hopefully without appearing to be ‘ganging up’ on Andrew, I would concur with Peter’s insightful comments.
But I would like to respond to the following:
Andrew, what, pray tell, does history coming to an end then look like, from your vantage? Is there an end? Is eschatology, as traditionally conceived, ever a biblical concept in your mind? When Daniel writes in 9:24,
he appears to me to be describing, quite clearly, the end of history as we know it. When will everlasting righteousness be established, in your view? Apparently, it already has. Correct? But in my understanding, this can only be sensibly true in the eschatological (re)creation of the new heavens and earth - "the home of righteousness," as Peter refers to it.
Israel’s story is the story about the redemption of the cosmos - not merely Israel herself. The vindication of Israel, as Moses sang, is wrapped up in the worship and joy of the nations! Her blessings do not merely yield in national surivival, but ultimatley in the eschatological reversal of the cosmic curse. I believe this universal hope for "paradise regained" is the redemptive theme of Genesis, as the ‘meta-history’ of Israel (e.g., from the naming of Noah, to the international locus of the Abrahamic blessings). The ancient hope was eschatological at its root. As the author of Hebrews writes of the Patriarchs,
And certainly, in the context of Hebrews (cf. 12:22-28), you don’t think this city is first century Jerusalem! Or do you?
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
I think that most of what we label ‘eschatology’ is much more worldly and historically oriented than we have traditionally assumed - and I think that is a good thing because it focuses our attention on the presence of the people of God in the world and on our engagement with society. However, I think that the New Testament expresses a clear hope or expectatation that sin and death will not have the final say over God’s good creation. I would argue that Romans 8:18-25 refers to the vindication of the Son of man community against its oppressors, but it alludes to the hope of creation to be free from the bondage to decay. That hope is expressed more vividly in Revelation 20:11-22:5: a final judgment of all the dead and the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth in which there is no more wickedness and death.
How on earth does Daniel 9:24 refer to ‘the end of history as we know it’? Daniel is in Babylon. He has read in Jeremiah 29:10 that it will be 70 years before the desolation of Jerusalem is brought to an end Dan. 9:1-2. He prays to God, confessing the sin of Israel that brought the calamity of the exile upon the nation and seeking forgiveness:
Notice, again, that the ‘wrath’ of God refers to a historical act of judgment.
Then Gabriel appears and explains that not 70 years but 70 weeks of years ‘are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place’ (9:24). So it will take much longer for the sin which resulted in the exile to be atoned for and for an ‘everlasting righteousness’ - that a right standing before YHWH that will not again be nullified by a judgment such as the exile - to be brought in. However we interpret the 490 years or the events of 9:25-27, this all has to do with the fate of the people of God. Daniel was not looking for an end to history. He was looking for an end to Israel’s state of alienation from God. Christ is our righteousness - he is the one who has ensured that the people of God qua a people will never again suffer the sort of judgment or condemnation that Israel suffered in the exile.
Back to Deuteronomy 32. Moses prophesies judgment on Israel when they provoke the Lord to jealousy (32:19-22). They will sufffer at the hands of their enemies. But because YHWH will not allow the enemies of his people to exult over him (cf. 32:27), he will defeat them and vindicate his people. This is throroughly realistic and historical in its conception. Then, when God ‘avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries’, this act elicits praise (32:43).
Here we have a translation problem. Traditionally the verse has been translated as in the RSV: ‘Praise his people, O you nations…’. This would be much like numerous passages in Isaiah which speak of the nations praising the God of Israel when he restores his people from exile in Babylon - in acknowledgement that the god of this small nation is indeed powerful, the God of the whole earth. But there is no ‘end of history’ element to this: it speaks of the response of the nations to God’s deliverance of his people in the midst of history.
On the basis of the Septuagint and a version of this text found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, the ESV translates: ‘Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods…’. But the basic point is unaltered. The verse speaks of the impact of God’s saving act in history. The Bible, as I have said, expects the final ‘reversal of the cosmic curse’, but to read that into Deuteronomy 32 is completely unwarranted.
Hebrews 12:22-28, in my view, refers to the hope that the suffering community in Christ who will reign with Christ in heaven (23), who receive the kingdom that is given to the Son of man (28). This is the heavenly Jerusalem, the home of those who walk the path that Christ walked, which will descend from heaven to be situated in the midst of the new creation. I see this as part of the narrative of eschatological crisis that is worked out in the emergence of the church, the war against Rome, and the eventual defeat of the supreme pagan opponent, imperial Rome represented by a deified emperor.
Re: Resurrection and eschatological crisis
Andrew writes,
The language speaks of the eradication of wickedness altogether and the final establishment of everlasting righteousness. It doesn’t seem to me to be a real stretch. And this is not to deny the historical context, nor the immediate historical significance of the passage…
Indeed. He had anticipated the end of Israel’s exile under Babylon, and yet realized that, based on the fundamental dynamic of the covenant (repentance as the necessary prerequisite to national restoration, cf. Deut.4:25-31; 27-30; Lev.26:1-46), his peope were not in a position (spiritually) to be restored. Thus his repentant prayer on behalf of the nation in the beginning of chapter 9 (cf. Neh.9).
Yet Gabriel comes with new revelation: it won’t be a straight up 70 years after all. It will be ‘extended’…7x70. The (full) restoration of the nation will be ‘punted’ beyond Jeremiah’s 70 years…and yet, it wasn’t. Just as God had promised through the weeping prophet, Israel was restored to the holy land under Cyrus (as Isaiah had amazingly predicted). But the restoration was "not all that it was cracked up to be" in the writings of Moses and the Prophets. We explain this by saying that the restoration was incomplete. Indeed it was. For the spiritual renewal (i.e., circumcision of the heart) of the people was not yet a reality. This is the redemptive-historical context of John’s preaching and baptism, and explains his demands on Israel.
So what’s the meaning of the 7x70 ‘extension’? The final vindication of God’s people (and hence God’s redemptive purposes in the world) awaited a distant future consummation. What does this demonstrate? The final restoraton and vindication of God’s people has far more in its purview than the national reconstitution and reinstitution of geo-political Israel. It is ultimately the coming of the heavenly kingdom (Dan.2; 7) - the reign of God on earth through the Messiah, the Son of Man. It ultimately involves the renewal of even nature itself (as the agricutlural, political, and even climatological blessings of the Mosaic covenant intimate, and especially as unpacked, often apocalyptically, in the prophetic literature, cf. Ez.45-48; etc.). In a word, the promise of Israel wasn’t merely over a small piece of real estate in the middle east (as Hebrews 11 suggests…and I still await your thoughts on the eschatological nature of the Patriarch’s hope, according to the author of Hebrews).
It was ultimately about the cosmic redemption of the nations (including the renewal of heaven and earth itself) through the international and eschatological reign of David’s Son (e.g., Ps.2; 72; Isa.11; cf. 49:6; etc.).
You continue to dichotomize the historical and eschatological (as traditionally understood), Israel and the cosmos, because, I submit, you fail to see how Israel’s narrative is the very center of the broader redemptive metanarrative of Scripture. The historical narrative of Israel is distinct from God’s universal purposes for all the nations, to be sure, but it can never be separated from it. Moreover, it is clear to me that, just as their stories have a common origin in the book of Genesis, so they also have the same telos or terminus: the one new man, the new creation, the new heavens and the new earth, all consummated under the universal reign of Davidic Messiah (Eph.1:10, 22-23; 2:11-22; etc.). And this is a reality both manifested in the present, and to be revealed gloriously in the eschatological future.
So back in Dan 9, Gabriel speaks of the (eschatological) hope of Israel, which is rooted not in Israel’s inheritance of the promise land under Moses and Joshua, nor even in the Patriarch’s proleptic ‘possession’ of the land as nomadic wanderers in Canaan centuries before, but in Genesis 1-3. The blessings of Abraham, and therefore of the covenant through Moses, the Law, is ultimately the promise of ‘Paradise regained’, as I argued previously, borne out in the fundamental narrative of Genesis. (It’s no mistake that Genesis comes before Deuteronomy - framing the entire Pentateuch, indeed, the entire canon). Just as the curse of the garden is essentially identical to the curse of the Law, i.e., death, so the blessing is likewise the same: life - life in the fullest (which is radically eschatological, resurrection-life). Such life is not only inward and spiritual, but outward, environmental and cosmic.
So when Gabriel speaks of bringing an end to wickedness and "establishing righteousness" once and for all, he alludes to, using your language, "the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth in which there is no more wickedness and death."
This, and nothing less, was the ultimate hope of Israel’s prophets and patriarchs. They longed not merely for political and national ‘survival’, but for life indeed in a city with everlasting foundations (cf. He.11:10)!
The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
This raises too many points of disagreement over how we understand the language of prophecy, eschatological fulfilment, the relationship between Israel’s story and the nations, etc., to attempt to respond comprehensively here. Underlying this is a fundamental hermeneutical disagreement, though again it would be a big task to try to tease that problem apart and make sense of it.
Basically, though, I would say that you are reading far too much into Daniel 9:24.
By the end of the period of 70 times 7 years two things will have happened. i) The ‘sin’ that led to the exile will have been atoned for. ii) A righteousness or vindication ‘age-enduring’ will have been established. This two-fold event will be the true fulfilment of Jeremiah’s vision (‘to seal both vision and prophet’) and the reconsecration of the temple (‘to anoint a most holy place’). Gabriel then explains in more narrative detail how this hope will be worked out - a sequence of events that culminates in the attack of the ‘prince who is to come’, who will put an end to sacrifice and introduce the abomination of desolation into the sanctuary (9:25-27). This is a reference to Antiochus and it marks the historical end-point for Gabriel’s vision of the 70 times 7 years.
The historical context is very clear, and we cannot disregard the constraints it imposes in support of a universalizing eschatology. The story about the people of God has universal and, indeed, cosmic implications - I agree. But we will misrepresent those implications if we blithely gloss over the historical specificity of the texts.
Daniel 9:24 does not speak of atonement for all sin or even for all Israel’s sin. It is an atonement for the particular rebelliousness that led to captivity in Babylon. Daniel’s earlier prayer is quite specific:
Similarly, behind the thought of bringing in a righteousness or vindication age-enduring are likely two contextually relevant ideas: i) the demonstration of God’s righteousness with regard to how he has dealt with his people (cf. 9:7, 14, 16, 18); and more importantly ii) the making right or vindication of the sanctuary following its desolation by Antiochus (cf. 8:14). Again, I would submit that you are making the mistake of reading a New Testament theology into an Old Testament text that makes perfectly good sense (in fact, much better sense) without it. My point is simply that this is the wrong way to get to where we want to go.
Daniel 9:24 does not need the New Testament. It speaks simply of God’s faithful dealings with his people during a particular and limited historical period. There is absolutely no need to expand the verse to encompass the whole of Jewish and cosmic history; Daniel is not looking ahead to a final renewal of creation - that is beyond his horizon. However, it is certainly the case that Jesus and others make typological or analogical use of the Antiochene crisis and the story of the suffering community of the Son of man to give expression to their convictions about the situation of God’s people in the first century, facing a far more serious end-game.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
Without picking up too much of the detailed background to this discussion, I would have thought, Andrew, that we do indeed need the NT to envisage a fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:24) - in the sense that transgression was never finished, sin never put an end to, wickedness never atoned for and everlasting (or however you interpret ‘olam’) righteousness never brought in, until Jesus came and did it in a way that had never clearly been foreseen.
The central preoccupation of Israel up to the time of Jesus was the absence of forgiveness of sins, which accounted for all the other problems which Israel faced - notably continuing exile from the land, pagan oppression, absence of YHWH from the temple, no authentic temple, no descendant of David on the throne, no Spirit outpoured, no resurrection from the dead.
The point of the 70x7, I would have thought, was that Israel’s exile was not just for 70 years, but much longer. The period roughly matches that which occurred until the birth of Jesus. In this, I take a different line of interpretation again from KJ1, as is apparent.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
The thing is, Peter, that Daniel very carefully sets these statements within a historical narrative that stretches from the exile to the crisis provoked by Antiochus’ assault on Judaism. There is nothing in the passage that requires a fulfilment beyond that framework: he addresses the limited and particular issues of the ‘treachery’ that led to the exile and the extended period needed to bring that state of alienation from God to an end. From his perspective the ‘everlasting righteousness’ is brought in when the opponent of Israel, Antiochus, is ‘judged’ and the temple is reconsecrated. That brings to a conclusion this particular critical moment in Israel’s history.
But of course, it was very easy to see this whole story being played out again in the first century because from that later perspective sin had not been completely dealt with and Israel was still oppressed by a pagan power. It just seems to me preferable to say that the prophet Jesus made analogical use of Daniel’s story than that Daniel literally prophesied the events of the first century. I agree with you that the problem was finally resolved through the cross, but I would attribute this insight to Jesus rather than to Daniel.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
Andrew - the interpretation you offer (of 9:24) does not completely square with what we know of Israel’s preoccupations throughout the 2nd temple period, and certainly into the 1st century and the time of Jesus. I don’t think a limited historical interpretation that 9:24 had been fulfilled with the overthrow of the Seleucids and reconsecration of the temple works - and it certainly isn’t one of the affirmations of canonical literature, which is where you’d most expect to find it. It also runs into problems with the 70x7 prophecy - which attaches itself to the 70 years of exile in 9:3. In other words, the promises of 9:24 were not fulfilled then, nor during the following period, and actually not at any time since - apart from the radical fulfilment brought by Jesus.
The 70x7 prophecy has some interest in a rather obscure connection with Jesus urging forgiveness 70x7 times (Matthew 18:22). He reverses the conditions of the period of time during which Israel had not experienced forgiveness.
I thought I’d throw that one in to stir things up a bit.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
As I said before, exegesis is not driven by fulfilment. It is a question of what the text actually states, and as far as I can see, the text has to do with the resolution of the crisis of Antiochus’ assault on Judaism. You keep trying to undermine this with reference to matters external to the text, but all that seems irrelevant unless you can show that Daniel was clearly looking beyond the story about Antiochus, which provides the culmination of the various narratives in Daniel 7-12.
I see no problem, given what Daniel has already said, with applying the statements about the atonement for sin and the establishment of righteousness to the particular historical episode. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not every theological statement in scripture has to have universal or absolute significance.
I don’t get your point about this not being one of the affirmations of canonical literature. If this is what Daniel says, it is one of the affirmations of canonical literature. He was concerned about the crisis in the second century BC. Why shouldn’t he say something significant about it?
And what’s the problem with the 70 times 7? Whether we are supposed to understand the period as literal or symbolic, it is explicitly said to culminate in Antiochus’ desolation of the temple (9:25-27). If you don’t like the historical fulfilment argument, you somehow have to explain this narrative context away.
I see no need to force feed Daniel to mean more than he’s actually saying. Why not just let him say what he clearly feels he needs to say, and then move on? If by the first century AD Israel is still in need of atonement, so what? That’s simply beyond Daniel’s horizon.
To quote Goldingay again:
Interesting suggestion about Jesus’ 70 times 7, though. That would certainly be fitting.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
Well … if Goldingay puts it like that, it must be true. However, I think you are in danger of overstating your case. Exegesis may not be driven by fulfilment, but prophecy is. It is by no means clear that the ‘anointed one’ of 9:25 refers to Antiochus, unless you are going to produce yet more evidence from Goldingay (of whom I am seriously in awe) that ‘masiah’, from which we get the word ‘Christ’, was commonly used of 2nd century B.C. tyrants, and Antiochus in particular. He is also a ‘ruler’ (nagid), but not the same as the ruler (nagid) who will come (verse 26). Who does Goldingay say this ruler is? (Cannot be the same as Antiochus, if the context is to be understood correctly). Also, how does Goldingay explain away the 70 weeks - which commentators seem to think refers to years, in which a week = 7 years? Doesn’t really point to Antiochius does it? And then there is the absence of evidence (especially in the canonical literature, which is where you’d expect to find it) to sustain a 200 B.C. interpretation of 9:24, and evidence to the contrary in the Jewish worldview during the 2nd century B.C. and up to the time of Christ. I realise you want to lock the texts up in a purely historical interpretation, but I’m not sure they will allow it.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
According to Goldingay, the anointed prince of 9:25 is either Zerubbabel or Joshua (‘sons of oil’ according to Zech. 4:14); the anointed one who is cut off in verse 26 is the High Priest Onias III, who was displaced on the accession of Antiochus in 175 BC; and the ‘leader to come’ is Onias’ reformist successor Jason, who corrupted and devastated the people of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Maccabees 4-5). It seems to me more likely that this last ‘prince’ is Antiochus, who will ‘cause offering and sacrifice to cease’, but in any case, the reference to abominations and desolation clearly identifies this event with the Antiochene crisis (cf. 11:31).
On the 70 times 7 years:
I still don’t understand why the absence of evidence from canonical literature is a problem.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
“I still don’t understand why the absence of evidence from canonical literature is a problem.”
Because it has a major bearing on how we would interpret YHWH’s relationship with Israel in the intertestamental period, and therefore the background to the time of Jesus himself. It does not sit with anything we know about that relationship in the rest of the canonical literature.
I’ll have to get a copy of this commentary by Goldingay. I’ve just had a birthday, so I can use a book token.
It would be nice to have it in time for a holiday in Tuscany next week, but my family would disagree with me.
Do read the book by Boris Johnson if you get a chance - it’s a breeze.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
Apologies for the my delayed response (our church plant is on the verge of "launching," as we Americans so glibly and perhaps arrogantly refer to it, and so I’ve been a bit busy).
Agreed…our differences are fundamentally hermeneutical (and, so, profoundly theological) in nature.
A few comments regarding hermeneutics and the prophets…
I agree entirely that we must do full justice to what you refer to as "the historical specificity" of the text (dispensationalists everywhere would applaud you at this juncture - and I too, though I am not a dispensationalist - as a needed corrective over the typical amillennial hermeneutic, which has tended to ‘spiritualize’ and thus ‘dehistoricize’ the OT, as is evidenced in much of the church’s interpretation of the prophets, from Origen to the Puritans).
However, we must also consider the biblical context: both literary, with reference to the particular prophetic writings themselves, and the canon, encompassing the entire corpus of the scriptures. And I do not think that the historic specificity of the context and text itself is at odds with its eschatological or cosmic significance.
To be sure, the immediate historical situation of Daniel is the Babylonian exile, and the imminent (or shall we say ‘should-be-imminent’) restoration of Jerusalem as promised through Jeremiah. However, it would be an injustice to Jeremiah to delimit the restoration of Judah (and Israel) to the land to the immediate events following Cyrus’ decree, recorded in Nehemiah, Ezra, and the post-exilic prophets’ historical narratives - and accurately described in Dan.9:25, to be sure. The fulfillment of Jeremiah’s visions entailed (at least) the inauguration of the "new covenant", which followed centuries later in the coming of the Christ (also promised through the prophet, e.g., Jer.30:9 - as in Daniel 9:26 as well).
The same is to be observed in Daniel’s prophecy. As you yourself have noted, the range of Daniel’s vision is remarkable (e.g., Dan.2, 7), encompassing not merely the collapse of Babylon, but of Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and ultimately, the establisment of God’s kingdom on earth through the coming "son of man". This clearly demonstrates the broad scope of Daniel’s prophetic visions.
Specifically in Daniel 9, the concern of imminent restoration is evidently ‘stretched’, as the promise of restoration is prolonged, past the 70 years to a period of 70 x 7 - clearly taking us beyond the "historic specificity" of return from Babylonian exile. This is undeniably the point of Gabriel’s prophecy: the restoration will not be completed within Jeremiah’s 70 years (though return of a remnant to the land will be…and was).
Moreover, as I have previously argued, the NT itself sees the prophecies of Daniel, in reference to the "abomination of desolation" and the coming man of lawlessness who establishes himself within "the temple" as God Himself, as yet future (from the perspective of Christ’s earthly career and Paul’s ministry). For Jesus clearly saw the events prophecied by Daniel as refering, at least, to the subsequent destruction of the temple by Titus in AD 70 (or, at least, Matthew and Mark did, as indicated by the editorial comment to this effect). And Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians regarding "the apostacy" to come is almost certainly drawn from the prophetic visions of Daniel.
How can this be? Which one is it? Does Daniel 9 refer to the abomination committed under Antioches Epiphanes during the Maccabbean period (which is nonetheless a relatively distant future event from the vantage of the prophet’s lifetime), or does it refer to the Roman forces under Titus?
I like Ridderbos’ term: "proleptic prophetic fulfillment". This seems to characterize much of OT prophecy. Consider for example Nathan’s prophetic promise to David in 2 Samuel 7. The context is clearly David’s request to build the temple. Yet the promise of a coming "son" both answers the specific question - that Solomon would build the temple - and offers the long-range eschatological hope of one through whom God would establish His reign on earth (2 Samuel 7:12-13). This is clearly how faithful Israel understood the promise, as evidenced in the psalms (e.g., Psalm 2), and how it was understood by the church (e.g., Acts 2:29-31). The promise of a son entailed not only the imediate question of who would build the temple, and that David would always have a son on the throne (e.g., Psalm 89), but also a coming Son of David, who would build, as it were, the eschatological temple of God.
So Solomon’s coronation and subsequent building the temple were seen as an immediate fulfillment of the promise (e.g., 1Kings 8:22-26). Yet it was fulfilled ultimately in Jesus Christ. So which is it? We don’t have to choose.
The same can be said of Isaiah 7, and the promise of a virgin’s child. The same can be said of Daniel 9-12 and the "abomination of desolation". And, I would submit, the same can be said of the Olivet Discourse, whose scope entails not only the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 135), but the end of history as we know it in the visible, glorious return of Christ and ‘collection’ of the saints.
Moreover, I would argue, this is not only suggested by the typology of prophecy, but demanded by the "historical specificity" of prophecy. The particulars of Daniel’s "abomination" and "the little horn" and, I would argue, of Jesus’ discourse on the Mt. of Olives, were not (as far as we can discern from history) all fulfilled in their immediate, historical ‘antitypes’. E.g., when did Daniel 9:27 ‘happen’ in Antiochus’ acts against Jerusalem? When did the "abomination of desolation" "on the wing" occur in Rome’s attacks against Jerusalem, and how was Titus (or whoever is "the one who makes desolate," which refers to a historic person, not an empire or "the Caesars" per se) subsequently destroyed violently?
The historical specificity of text itself demands that we look elsewhere - if we are to take the particulars of the text seriously. This, btw, is the weakness I see with the essentially preterist reading of Revelation - so much of the prophecy is consigned to obscurity, having no clear historical correlation with the events of Rome’s ‘collapse’.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
Well, the basic question that I need to keep asking is: What is there intrinsic to the prophetic texts that in any particular instance demands a secondary fulfilment?
If the ‘little horn’ in Daniel is Antiochus, then the fourth beast is presumably not Rome but Greece, though there is a Jewish apocalyptic tradition that interpreted it as Rome. But in either case, the ‘coming of the Son of man’ coincides with the destruction of the hostile power that oppresses Israel. It seems to me much easier to say, therefore, that Daniel ‘referred’ basically to the Antiochus crisis and that Jesus re-used the typology to refer to the Roman crisis. Even if we allow that there is an unfulfilled residue in Daniel, I don’t see the need to carry that over again following the vindication of the suffering community against its enemy Rome.
So in answer to your question, Daniel 9 refers to Antiochus’ action but Jesus makes it refer by way of analogy to the incursion of Titus. Either way, the apocalyptic language refers to foreseeable and historically relevant events. There is no need for us now to hypothesize a third destruction of the oppressor and vindication of the suffering community - that is, a third ‘coming of the Son of man’. Jesus was talking to his disciples about the future that they as a community faced. It’s as simple as that. Everything else, frankly, is fantasizing.
The argument from 2 Samuel 7 doesn’t work as far as I can see because the king as ‘son’ is intrinsically a recurring item. It is quite appropriate for later Israel to look for continuing fulfilments of the promise. This is not an example of ‘proleptic prophetic fulfilment’.
As for your remarks about the Olivet Discourse, I simply do not see what there is in it that requires an ‘end of the world’ interpretation. This is merely an assumption. It is foreign to the text. The language is entirely drawn from Old Testament prophecies that describe historical events - judgment on Israel’s enemies and the vindication of righteous Israel. When righteous Israel is again threatened by a powerful and Godless enemy, it seems entirely fitting that Jesus would use the same language in the same way to give the same assurance to a fearful community.
I do not think that the strongly poetic language of biblical prophecy requires the detailed, wooden, literalistic, point-for-point fulfilment that you seem to expect. This is all the more the case if Jesus is using the typology analogically. Not every detail is expected to fit: he describes a coming situation like that faced by Israel in the second century BC. This is not consigning the details to obscurity - it is simply a matter of understanding the genre.
It is unclear to me what ‘on a wing’ refers to Daniel 9:27. The ‘wing’ of the altar?
Jesus speaks of the ‘abomination of desolation’ standing in the Holy Place. He means that an event like Antiochus’ sacrilege will again desecrate the temple. There is no reference to a particular person here, merely to an act of desecration by a Gentile power.
So I repeat my point. Nothing in Jesus’ discourse requires an ‘end-of-the-world’ fulfilment. John speaks of an end of the heavens and earth at the climax of Revelation, but in quite different terms. Daniel describes not the passing away of God’s creation but the eventual historical victory of righteous Israel over a powerful pagan oppressor.
I hope the church plant goes well. God bless.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
I think I agree with Andrew on this one so far.
Prophecy, in my mind, does not necessarily mean prediction, especially in the case of apocalyptic texts. Apocalyptic texts were written to relate to the crisises of the authors’ times, to make sense of the crisis, and offer hope that good will prevail over evil. Jesus and his fellow Israelites were facing a new, separate but highly similar crisis from that of Daniel, so Jesus draws comparisons between the times of Daniel to his own times. So in one sense, yes, Jesus does make a prediction of what will happen in his future. However, that does not mean that Daniel himself was predicting events of the first century.
The Apocalypse of John, I would argue, does not speak of events Daniel himself predicted, but draws from the Apocalyptic language and symbols of Daniel, while expounding upon that language and those symbols, to fit his own time and crisis as well.
The only thing that worries me, though, is that in the case of Revelation, it seems John extends his vision beyond his own times near the end of text, and speaks universally. All the rest of the dead had not been judged. Death and hades continued to exist. There was no renewed Earth. There was no battle of Armageddon (or was there?). I believe we have hope that these events are still future. But, what worries me, as I was saying, is what is stopping us from interpreting all these other non-seemingly fulfilled events as relating to the first century? For example, near the end of Isaiah, it speaks of a new Heaven and new Earth, but you, Andrew, as I read somewhere on this website, seem to interpret that as the survival and renewal of Israel. We have a similiar image at the end of Revelation, but you interpret it literally and as future. Why?
How and when should we draw the line between what is history and what is future?
Armageddon, new heavens and new earth
The battle of Armageddon appears to me to belong to the judgment on Rome. It coincides with the ‘coming’ of Christ to deliver his people from their enemies (16:15) and the devastation of the ‘great Babylon’ (16:19); it is best understood, therefore, as a battle against Rome, rather than against God or the church (cf. Caird, Revelation, 206-207). Apparently, during Roman times there was a permanent Roman camp on the plain of Megiddo (Aune, Revelation 6-16, 898), though the significance of the name remains very obscure.
The motif of new heavens and new earth in Isaiah appears as part of a narrative of the restoration of exiled Israel. I would read it, therefore, as a metaphor for the recovery of the original vision that Abraham’s descendants would be a new creation in the earth. In Isaiah 65:17 it is a metaphor, in effect, for the complete forgiveness of former sins. Notice that in this new order of things death is still a reality (65:20).
It seems to me that John then takes up this motif in Revelation 20-21 but develops it into an ultimate hope for the making new of creation, well beyond (1000 years beyond!) the more pressing historical expectation of victory over Rome. He imagines a new heaven and a new earth, from which death has been finally banished (20:14; 21:4).
Re: Armageddon, new heavens and new earth
Thanks for the response.
But did not the battle of Armageddon occur after the thousand-year reign we are supposed to be living in now?
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Isaiah 65:20, I see what you mean now.
Re: Armageddon, new heavens and new earth
John foresees a battle at the end of the 1000 years, when Satan will gather the nations (Gog and Magog?) against the camp of the saints and the beloved city’ (Rev. 20:7-9). But this is not the same as the battle at Armageddon (16:16), which is associated with the judgment on Babylon the great. Notice that at Armageddon it is not the nations or the demonic forces that are destroyed but Babylon, that is Rome.
Re: Armageddon, new heavens and new earth
Ok, thanks.
This is hopefully my last set of questions concerning this subject, but how do you see this final battle manifesting itself? Are there any other passages that elaborate upon this final battle? How should we expect Satan to gather nations against his saints, and will this event occur literally in the nation of Israel, or figuratively around the globe wherever Christians may be?
And lastly, slightly off-topic, do you think the vindication of those slain for the testimony of Christ happened around the time of the historical fall of Rome or was it before? Those who were “caught up” were not physically caught up into Heaven, correct? These questions are still ones I do not completely understand even after reading the majority of your posts concerning resurrection.
Sorry for getting slightly off-topic.
Re: Armageddon, new heavens and new earth
Personally I wouldn’t speculate on the nature of that last battle. Theologically it provides the pretext for the final destruction of evil. In Ezekiel 38-39 Gog/Magog represent an assault against Israel after judgment and restoration, when the nation is living in peace and security again. Caird suggests that the myth represents the resilience of evil and this makes some sense. The passage in Revelation 20:7-9 uses the typology to represent the fact that even after judgment on Rome and the restraint of the satanic power that motivated Rome’s hostility, evil remains a threat to the integrity or peace of God’s people, a threat which will not be removed until the final renewal of heaven and earth.
As for the first resurrection, I think that’s the wrong sort of question to be asking. The point of the hope was that those who lost their lives out of faithfulness to Jesus during the birthpangs of the new age would be vindicated, and would reign with Christ, as part of the overall vindication of the church. The how is not of material significance for the prophecy.
Re: Armageddon, new heavens and new earth
Thanks. It all makes much more sense to me now. With my futurist roots, I was expecting there to be some sort of war, but as you pointed out, this final battle could simply represent the ultimate attempt for evil and death to prevail over the Church and its ultimate defeat inaugurating a new Heaven and Earth.
Re: The historical scope of Daniel 9:24
So do I. This is me being piggy in the middle - until KJ1 rouses himself from his trans-atlantic slumber and addresses the great issues of the day which have flown towards him from east to west with the rising of the sun.
Interpretation of Daniel 9:24 will have to wait until I spend my little book token on Goldingay’s commentary. But I can see what Andrew is getting at.
However, when it comes to the Olivet Discourse, things are not quite so simple. In Matthew 24, I agree with A. that most of the prophecy relates to AD 70. However, there is uncertainty, to my mind, about the meaning of the phrase used by the disciples: “end of the age” (verse 3). End of which age, and when? In the classic interpretation of Hebrew thought, there was “this evil age” (the age of pagan oppression) and “the age to come” (the age of Israel’s triumph). But unless Jesus was ignoring the disciples’ assumptions, his answer does not correspond exactly to the terms of the question.
Other attempts to explain the meaning of “end of the age” are equally unsatisfactory - eg end of the Jewish age, end of the 2nd temple age, end of the old covenant age, etc.
It makes better sense to assume that along with a 1st century “end of the age”, Jesus implied a much more distant “end of the age”, and that a more distant “coming” is implied than its 1st century fulfilment.
We need not here get too obsessed with directions of trajectory implied in “coming”; N.T.Wright has made rather too much of this, I think, in his interpretation of “coming” in the Daniel 7:13 prophecy. A “coming” which is towards the earth is strongly implied in the parables following the Matthew 24 prophecy - eg the thief, master, bridegroom, man/master, sheep and goats. It’s not a case of how many “comings” there are; there is only one “coming” - which extends from Jesus’s ascension to his final return - all subsumed under “coming” as his heavenly rule moving towards a complete earthly expression at his return.
This interpretive approach is encouraged by the parts of the prophecy which do not fit with a 1st century fulfilment (a 1st century fulfilment which nevertheless looms much larger than exegetes have tended to concede). The uncertainty of 1st century fulfilment is hinted at in verse 27; was AD 70 really such a visible demonstration of a “coming of the Son of Man”? Verses 30-40 take the uncertainty of a 1st century fulfilment further. When did “all the nations of the earth” at that time mourn? (Some have tried to recast this as “tribes of all the land” - to make it a geographically Jewish fulfilment). Again, where is the visibility of a 1st century “coming” - as suggested in 30b? Crucially, where is the gathering of the elect - doubly emphasised as a worldwide gathering - as described in verse 31 (“four winds” = four corners of the earth; “from one end of the heavens to the other”)?
With the best apocalyptic will in the world, portions of the prophecy such as these do not