Monday: The Structure of Daniel
The arrangement of the Aramaic section of Daniel, chapters 2-7 (parts of Daniel were written in Hebrew and other parts in Aramaic), reveals the following structure, which helps reinforce a central message of that section, and of the book:
A. Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of four kingdoms (Daniel chapter 2)
B. God delivers Daniel’s companions from the fiery furnace (Daniel chapter 3)
C. Judgment upon Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel chapter 4)
C’. Judgment upon Belshazzar (Daniel chapter 5)
B’. God delivers Daniel from the den of lions (Daniel chapter 6)
A’. Daniel’s vision of four kingdoms (Daniel chapter 7)
This kind of literary arrangement serves to highlight the main point by placing it at the center of the structure, which in this case consists of C and C’ (Daniel chapters 4 and 5): God removes the kingdom from Nebuchadnezzar (temporarily) and from Belshazzar (permanently). Therefore, the emphasis of chapters 2-7 is on God’s sovereignty over the kings of the earth as He establishes and removes them.
One of the most effective ways of conveying a message and making a point clear is by repetition. For example, God gives Pharaoh two dreams about the immediate future of Egypt (Gen. 41:1-7). In the first dream, seven fat cows are devoured by seven thin cows. In the second dream, seven ears of healthy grain are devoured by seven thin and blighted ears. Both dreams make the same point: seven years of prosperity will be followed by seven years of scarcity.
In the book of Daniel, God also uses repetition. There are four prophetic cycles, which are repetitions of an overall basic structure. In the end, this structure shows us the ultimate sovereignty of God. Although each major prophetic outline conveys a distinct perspective, together they cover the same historical period, extending from the time of the prophet to the end, as the following diagram shows:
Image © Pacific Press
| What great hope do these texts present regarding our long-term prospects? Dan. 2:44, Ps. 9:7-12, 2 Pet. 3:11-13. |
(19)
One of the features of the book of Daniel is that it combines narrative with prophecy. Did that just happen, or is there a purpose in that?
And on top of that, the vision of the first prophecy was given to Nebuchadnezzar and not Daniel initially. Why was that?
The second point of today's lesson is a reminder that repetition in different ways is important. When I taught a heavy concept in maths or science I would often have to repeat the lesson several times using different examples before my students grasped the idea. Students learn in different ways.
REPETATION
Why repeat?
To make it clear.
Why repeat the same thing in the same book four times?
-Each repetition has a distinct perspective.
- the information is given to different people one to a heathen king and another to the prophet.
Why is the information coded and difficult to understand?
- to preserve the truth. People can easily tamper with it the way they did with the second and fourth commandments.
The diagram at the end of today's lesson; I think it is difficult to understand. Does it make sense?
Yes it does. The writer is just trying to emphasize on the repetition part of it, the distinct perspective of each column Will come in the coming weeks.
Not sure that I see a repetition of the same thing but an unfolding of more information.
When writing an essay for School we were taught to first come up with an outline. Than fill in more information under each heading or category. THAT is what I see God doing as He expands upon Daniel 2 in chapters 7-11! With the conclusion in chapter 12.
I know this seems like a minor detail, but I think it's important enough to ask. If you go to an SDA prophecy seminar series, you can guarantee you'll hear about Medo-Persia (or Media-Persia).
However, at least here in the US, I have never heard a non-SDA refer to Medo-Persia. (A quick Google search reveals the Jehovah's Witnesses also use the term, apparently.) The general historical terms used today are the Persian Empire, or more scholarly, the Achaemenid Empire (since Persia was also Iran's name until the 1930s).
Do we, as a church, do ourselves a disservice by clinging to the 19th Century "Medo-Persia" name so tenaciously?
I guess I worry that we're shooting ourselves in the foot. We're trying to show how much prophecy unveils about history (which it does), and yet we fail to even use the correct current historical terms. I'm afraid it makes it look like we don't even know enough about history to be worth hearing.
It's hard enough to make people think religion is relevant to their lives these days. It's doubly true for those who are highly educated...the exact sorts who'd expect to hear "Persian Empire" or "Achaemenid Empire" used. It feels like an unforced error -- giving them an extra hook to hang their doubts on right from the start, and I worry about that.
Am I overthinking this, or is it time to give the Media-Persia name a rest?
(And to be clear, I'm not ripping SDA pioneers at all. There was nothing wrong with James White saying it, or Uriah Smith using it in "Daniel and the Revelation," because Medo-Persia *was* the commonly used term in the 1800s. But this quarterly isn't for 1880, it's for 2020.)
You may well be right, but we have to also recognise that the Bible uses the the expression "Medes and Persians" and its derivatives about 10 times in Esther and Daniel. So while it is useful to use and recognise the updated terminology we also link back to the scriptural use. Thank you for pointing out the change in expression.
Maybe we need to stay true to the meaning of the symbols used in prophecy. The Persian empire does not fit the description of the lopsided bear which effectively represents two nations, one of which was stronger than the other. That specific description helps us to understand the symbolism.
If we "modernise" Medo-Persia, we will have to do the same with Babylon...and a lot of other names of places even in the New Testament.
And while we are at it, let's modernise the currency and weights also!
There is no problem staying with the ancient names, whilst at the same time making reference to the modern ones.
I hear you,but I i can not see this as being a stumbling block. To many things are being changed that need not. My Mum is Methodist and was undertaking lay preachers course and they now refer to time/dates as common era not old testament or new testament. I found this very worrying.
I also googled Media and found how important it was in developing Persia/Iran. https://en.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(region)
In 678BC Deioces combined the Median tribes to make the first empire of Iran
In 553BC Cyrus, king of Persia rebelled against his grandfather, the Median king, Astyages. The Medes were subjected to their close kin the Persians, areas in Persia continued to be called Media.
Anyone who has studied the history of that area will be aware of the role of Media as forerunner and part of Persia.
The term "the law of the Medes and Persians" as a law that cannot be changed is still in common usage. Dan 6:8, 15 and Esther 1:19, 8:8 and thus understood by most people.
In addition reference is made to the Medes in prophecy by Isaiah and Jeremiah Isa 13:17-18, Jer 51:28, 11 so to remove it from the name of the kingdom who conquered Babylon would invalidate those prophecies.
Taking all factors into consideration I believe that identifying the lopsided bear with 3 ribs in his mouth as Medo-Persia (modern Iran) is true to Scripture and will not be a hindrence to the message.
[In the English Speaking world]there is a phenomenon of “politically correct” “speak” that has caused a deep and sometimes violent division in our culture between political “liberals” and “conservatives”. This “speak” has taken common English words and terms and “redefined” them to mean something specific and political so that common or archaic definitions are not recognized or accepted...ie: gay; progressive; B.C./A.D.; liberal and conservative...even the word “constitution” when used by most media, and their allies in the legislature, has come to mean that the intent of the founding fathers was not to provide a touchstone document based the principles of God’ creation laws, but a document that is “living” and can be modernized by successive generations to fit the changing (disappearing?) morality.
May I submit: Using biblical terms and definitions will continue to solidify the authority of the Word of God over human’s politically correct moral degradation. (Too strong?)
God gave Joseph a dream when he was seventeen years old.
He had this dream repeated twice in his life because of the dream he was hated by his brothers and even shunned by his parents.
When Joseph revealed the dream he must have thought he was the right person chosen by God favored by the father, coat of many colors signified royalty.
What could go wrong?
His life suddenly takes a U turn.
Left in a pit to die.
Sold as a slave.
Living in a foreign land far from home who would think that his dream has any chance of surviving.
When he thought life could not get any worse guess what he is locked up for a crime he did not commit.
He thought the man from Pharaoh's house would free him.
Two long years passes in the prison before he gets summoned in to presence of Pharaoh.
From seventeen year old to when he stands before Pharaoh he was thirty years old.
Once in power Joseph could have went home and punished his brothers.
He patiently waited upon the Lord to fulfill His dream.
His dream was fulfilled probably around ten years later close to when he was forty years old.
Nebuchadnezzar thought it is impossible for anyone to defeat his kingdom.
This dream was given at the height of the Babylonian kingdom.
Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 declared the end of Babylon and it came to pass.
The historical accounts of Daniel gives validity to the Word of God.
Maybe the evidences are stacked against you.
No one believe the account of what you are saying
If you steadfastly hold on to the teaching of the Lord.
He who cannot lie will come to pass what He uttered.
Trust in Him. Commit all your ways unto Him.
By putting all these prophecies of Daniel together in a schedule it emphasize to me two main points:
1) my life is only a short time in the scope of the LORD's overall plan
2) there will be an end to this world as we know it, the whole planet will be completely wiped out and the LORD will create a new heaven and a new earth.
The fact that we can correlate the Daniel to actual leaders and nations shows us that the Lord is true to his word . We can believe in the coming of a new heaven.
Our Lord is coming soon,signs show that
God's approach of communicating a spiritual truth is just too wonderful.He uses symbolism to show the beauty and complexity of the Bible to prompt humans into deep cryptic spiritual readership. But, is symbol more important than what it stands for? What is the importance of the type in the face of the antitype?
Here again, in 2 Peter 3:12: The original word used here is "speudo" and has for its main meaning "To await eagerly." I am fully convinced that the translation of the word "Speudo" to English here to make it say "Hastening" is a "Mis-translation" In the context that Peter said this was not in the context of Jesus' second coming but in "The Coming of the Day of God," in which the elements shall melt with fervent heat and a New Heaven and Earth is created. This does not happen until after the 1,000 year millenium.
I fear of late we are arguing more( of course with an aim of agreeing) but we are not drawing lessons as we used to draw from our study guides. Lessons that used to help even non-adventists.