I.
Introduction
The book of
Daniel stands apart from the rest of the book which make up the Old Testament. Though
it is found in our English Bibles among the prophets, it does not contain
proclamations in the name of the Lord as other prophets do; nor is it
historical in the sense that the book if Kings are Historical, though it begins
from a point in history and is clearly concerned with history.
II.
Authorship of the book
The question of
Daniel’s authorship of the book still remains undecided. The book of Daniel are
much the story of Daniel rather than by Daniel. There has been much comment
about who or what particular groups within Second Temple Judaism may then have
been responsible for compiling and collecting the stories. The matter of
authorship of the visions is somewhat more complex. Although they are largely
implied in the first person, there is evidence of some edited material in the
third person (7:1 and 10:1). Again, this
means that the visions themselves have probably been collected and perhaps
edited by another person or group, even if they are basically a set of
visionary memories composed by Daniel himself.However, it is important
whatstand that we adopt towards it rather than who we think wrote the material
and when. We are called to receive the words of cp. 7-12 as authoritative
scripture however imperfectly we may understand some of them.[1]
III.
Form
The book of
Daniel is normally characterized as apocalyptic literature, and in the process
is sometimes set slightly apart for other biblical literature as a unique phenomenon
in the Old Testament canon. It is evident from the shape of the book of Daniel
that apocalyptic literature arises to some extent out of the wisdom tradition,
there is also evidence that part of the seed bed of apocalyptic is the
prophetic literature. So we see Daniel as an example as an example of
literature which brings together the forces of apocalyptic thought with the
great Hebrew traditions of wisdom and prophecy.[2]
IV.
Structure
The main address
opens by recapitulating this point and by emphasizing the reliability of what
is to follow. Its announcement of events to come begins with a series of with a
series of kings who seem to have the capacity to achieve much, but eventually
fail or fall (11:2-9). There follows one- not clearly distinguished form his
predecessors- whose two campaigns against the southern king, his being checked
by a third force, his receiving support among Daniel’s own people, and his
campaigning in the fairest land foreshadow acts of the last northern king
(11:10-19).[3]
This security
grows increasingly important as Daniel 11-12 unfolds. Though space does not permit
a full description of the events descried in 11:1-39, the text predicts
historical details that transpire between the Persian period and Antiochus’
death. As in previous visions, this passage promises that evil will not
triumph.[4]
V.
Analysis of the keyword: Truth
The
understanding of the biblical view of the truth encounters special difficulties
on account of the long and intricate history of the terminology. The English word
“truth” is the common rendering of “aleteia” in the NT and the LXX.
However, in both of them the term corresponds frequently to Hebrew “’mt”,
a noun derived from the verb “’mn”, which means “to sustain, to
support.” The basic meaning of the root is most clearly seen in the adjectival Niph‘al
participle “n‘mn”, which is rendered “firm, solid, reliable” (Gen.
42:16), “faithful, tested” (Deut. 7:9; Isa. 1:21), “perceptible”, “true”, and
“lasting”.[5]
Since according
to the OT everything in this world is created by God and has its destination
through the divine purpose, for which it has been brought into being, God’s
“truth” is to reflect itself in man’s life.[6]
VI.
Exegetical outline
The tribulation under Antiochus IV and Antichrist
A.
Form the
Persian Empire to the Death of Antichrist (vv. 2-4)
B.
South vs North (vv. 5-9)
C.
The fall of South (vv. 10-13)
VII.
Expository explanation
The tribulation under Antiochus IV
and Antichrist
A.
From the Persian Empire to the Death of
Antichrist (vv. 2-4)
The offer to
tell… the truth recalls the “Book of Truth” in 10:21 where the same vocabulary
is used. The verb translated “tell” almost always relates to some kind of
divine revelation. And the phrase I tell you the truth is a final reminder that
the angel is conveying all of this to Daniel. From here on the narrative
becomes a chronicle of events, without further evidence of this background
relationship until we rich chapter 12.[7]
There
are only fleeting references to Persia and Greece. Having said that, it is not
entirely clear who the three more kings… in Persia, and then a fourth might be.
In the first place, the Hebrew phraseology is ambiguous as to whether the
fourth king is additional to the other three or the culmination of them. In
these verses God’s hand is seen in the information that the empire of Alexander
is to be “parceled out”, with on reference to who may be doing the parceling.
This is a typical example of the “apocalyptic passive”. Another hint of God at
work behind the scenes. Even at such a time as this, God is still sovereign
over the nations of his world.[8]
B.
South vs North (vv. 5-9)
At first it is
the king of the south (negeb) who dominates the scene. Our
interpretation of south and north must be governed by the setting of the
chapter, and not go beyond the boundaries of the world empires of the time. Though
the king of Egypt is at first in control, one of his princes is to gain power.
“His” means Alexander’s generals, and the verse indicates that Egypt’s king
will face a rival whose empire will outstrip his own.[9]
Verse
7 sets forth subsequent reprisal. Ptolemy Philadelphus died in 247 B.C., soon
after the tragedy that had overtaken his daughter Berencie. But his capable son
Ptolemy III (Euergetes) organized a great expeditionary force against Syria, in
order to avenge his sister’s death. This war raged from 246 to 241, in the
course of which Ptolemy captured and pillaged the Seleucid capital of Antioch
and invaded its eastern domains as far as Bactria.[10]
C.
The Fall of South (vv. 10-13)
“His sons will commit themselves to war…”:Seleucus II was succeeded by
his sons, Seleucus III and on his murder during a campaign in Turkey- Antiochus
III. The latter attempted to turn the tide of aggressive power between the
Seleucids and the Ptolemies, beginning in 219 by recapturing Seleucia. He was
content with victory and the regaining of Palestine and Phoenicia, and did not
press his advantage, making peace with Antiochus.[11]
VIII.
Application
This passage,
read simply within the narrative as we have it, claims to be history told
beforehand in fairly well defined detail. As we have seen, often the kings
referred to can be named, and the incidents delineated can be traced to actual
happening. If we are to take the Bible seriously as a whole, we must maintain
the view that God is God of the individual as well as of communities, and that
he controls history in such a way as to give free play to human decision, and
opportunity for genuine human repentance.
If we believe, therefore, that the account of the Seleucids and Ptolemies
in our present chapter is a predictive prophecy, we must hold God worked his
purpose out through the interaction of all these kings and these families.
Daniel helps us to see the nonsense of trying to have faith unless at the same
time we have hope in what is going to be at the time of the end. As writer of
Ecclesiastes warns us in 7:15; 8:14.
IX.
Conclusion
In a time when
Israel was suffering in exile, God gave Daniel comforting good news about God’s
sovereignty, God’s providence, and the certainty of God’s glorious coming
kingdom. God has been active in the history and he was sovereign over the
kingdoms during the days of Daniel. He raised, whom he wanted and He demolished
whom he willed. The whole book of Daniel show the sovereignty of YHWH. He is
still working through the history and comforting the one in need. We just have
to trust and have faith in Him that all things will work for the good of those
who love God.
The
book of Daniel consist of the history and visions to render a world. His vision
creates radically different world that makes continuing life in this world
possible on the basis of its not being the only world, or in the End the most
important one. Daniel as a whole invites us to live this life in the light of
such conviction that life.
[1] Tim
Meadowcroft and Nate Irwin, The Book of Daniel (Singapore: Asian
Theological Association, 1984), 12-13.
[2]Ibid.,
15-16.
[3]John
E. Goldingay, Word Biblical Commentary: Daniel, (USA: Word Books, 1989),
287.
[4] Paul
R. House, Old Testament Theology (USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998), 507.
[5] O. A.
Piper, “Truth”, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (USA: Abingdon
Press, 1986), 713-714.
[6]Ibid.,715.
[7]Tim
Meadowcroft and Nate Irwin, The Book of Danie, 220.
[8]Ibid.,
221-223.
[9] Joyce
G. Baldwin, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Daniel, (USA:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 186.
[10]
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. “Daniel”, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, eds., Frank
E. Gaebelein, (USA: Zondervan, 1985), 130.
[11] John
E. Goldingay, Word Biblical Commentary: Daniel, (USA: Word Books, 1989),
296-297.
No comments:
Post a Comment