Skip to main content

Apocalyptic Imagery and Daniel Part 2

In the last post we spent some time looking at the importance of understanding both aspects of the meaning (sense and referent) of symbolism in apocalyptic literature. In this post we will start by looking at who the holy ones of Daniel 7:18, 21, 22, 25, 27 are.

The identity of the holy ones has been one of the big scholarly battlegrounds in Daniel 7, though we have come to have more consensus in recent years than in the past. There are two main views. Either the holy ones are angels or they are faithful Jews. Lucas (191, 192) lays out the argument clearly for us. The view that they're heavenly beings is the newer view but it has numerous strengths, especially that this particular phrase 'holy ones' usually does not refer to human beings. Only once in the OT does it clearly refer to people (Ps. 34:9). Typically in the literature from Qumran 'holy ones' refers to angels. On the other hand, there are good arguments for seeing the 'holy ones' as being faithful Jews - especially since the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) wages war against them. Additionally, how would this chapter provide hope for Jews living in the second century if they're not the holy ones?

Some of the more recent commentaries (e.g., Goldingay and Lucas) both lean towards the angelic viewpoint but don't think that it eliminates an identification with faithful Jews. Apocalyptic symbolism can be multivalent. Part of the point of apocalyptic literature is to show that what is happening on earth is a picture of what is happening in heaven and many of the symbols have both earthly and heavenly counterparts (remember the four beasts - earthly kingdoms under demonic influence). We need not pick.

So now we want to move to the question of theology. What are some guidelines in appropriating apocalyptic for today? Should we even do so? I think that we can and should since Daniel is Scripture. To distance ourselves from it would be to deny its status as holy Scripture. Additionally, we see examples like Revelation and 4 Ezra, reusing and reinterpreting Daniel 7. They both apply (4 Ezra explicitly says that it is reinterpreting the fourth beast - see 2 Esdras 12:11-12) the beast imagery to the Roman empire. I think that this is legitimate and represents the other side of the multivalence of the imagery. It's free to be reapplied in new contexts. At the same time I would want to exercise the utmost caution in appropriation. Perhaps Christians in North Korea or in parts of the Middle East can best lay claim to seeing themselves literally in situations analogous to the Jews of the second century. However, I still think that in a limited sense we can apply passages like this whenever we fight evil social structures that bring oppression. Our God is a big God and he is the judge who not only judges individuals, but also judges the structures of society.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…