Skip to main content

The Unity of Daniel

Sorry I've been mostly absent from this blog for a little over month now. You can look forward to regular posting from me at least through early January (hopefully even longer) from now on. Over at Boston Bible Geeks, danny mentioned that Daniel was one of the books that was most confusing to him. It was for me too until I studied it. Now that my study and class on Daniel are complete I thought that I could do a short series dealing with a few random aspects of Daniel. Most of the posts will deal with the apocalyptic section as those are the most confusing chapters. The last post in the series will be a wrap up on commentaries (I'll review five of them).

In today's post I'd like to make a couple of comments about how the book as a whole works. First, I think it's important to stress up front that these comments are on the book in its final form. I think that the stories probably circulated orally and possibly somewhat independently of one another for some time (perhaps centuries - yes I am inclined towards a 2nd century date) before being written down, but the stories as they existed independently aren't Scripture. They are Scripture as bound with the apocalyptic visions and thus our understanding of the intent of the stories must include the fact that they are thus bound.

One interesting and very useful fact about the book of Daniel is that 1:1-2:4a and chapters 8-12 are in Hebrew, and 2:4b-7:28 are in Aramaic. If you were to break the book down by genre, 1-6 would be narrative and 7-12 would be apocalyptic. The fact that we have portions of each half in each language tells us that the author of Daniel wanted us to see the book as a unity. The stories aren't separable from the visions. This view is strengthened by the fact that the Aramaic portion is arranged chiastically, with chapters 2 and 7 being A and A' by virtue of both being centrally focused on a symbolic revelation about God's judgment of (the same) four kingdoms.

Additionally, it is clear that both the narrative and apocalyptic section both have the same themes worked out in different ways. Those are: God is the sovereign king and is active in history; related to that, God rules over foreign overlords; and God will vindicate his faithful ones. The main difference between the two sections is how and for what purposes they develop each of those themes. Like much Hebrew narrative and also like Jesus' parables, the stories are stories with intent. The goal is drive the readers to live faithfully under foreign rule and the encroachment of oppressive foreign culture, holding up Daniel and his three friends as exemplary and showing how God consistently vindicated them when they were faithful.

For those living under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, one could still dismiss these stories because the faithful were dying. It didn't seem like God was still active in the way he was in the stories about Daniel and his friends. Was God still faithful towards Israel? Even though they were in the land, oppression was probably worse than it was under the Babylonians or the Persians. The apocalyptic sections come in to reaffirm the message of the narratives and give a big shot of hope that God would soon act to vindicate his people.

Additionally, we must also notice that the stories serve to set up the apocalyptic sections. Daniel is the recipient of divine revelation; mantic wisdom and is also a man of great piety. He has the right credentials to be the one to whom God gives further divine revelation. In this case, not even he can understand it and hence needs an interpreter. So as we've seen the relation between the narratives and the apocalyptic portions are somewhat complex and they are definitely interrelated. Praise God that in his wisdom he chose to give us both together.


  1. I'm looking forward to your thoughts in the future. But the main reason I'm commenting is because I think you'll like the chance at a free book:


Post a Comment

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…