Daniel 10 - Prepared for the Final Vision

10:1 – The Time and General Content of the Vision.  The third year of Cyrus king of Persia would place this vision in approximately 536-535BC.  This would also suggest that the recently begun work on rebuilding the Temple of the LORD by the returning exiles under the supervision of Ezra had been stopped temporarily by Samaritan opposition (Ezra 4:5, 24).  Why would Daniel suddenly at this point refer to himself as “Belteshazzar” and in the third person?  This would seem to tie in the contents of the first chapter with the contents of the last vision (chapters 10-12) by referring to King Cyrus (Dan.1:21; although this refers to his first year) and to Daniel’s Babylonian name (Dan.1:7).  Why should the “message” be affirmed as “true” (Heb. ’ĕmet)?  Is this not always the case of messages from the LORD?  This serves to mark the vision apart as truly a vision given concerning the future and accurately speaking to matters that will occur.  It also suggests that what will occur has already been written in the “Book of Truth” (Heb. k^ətāb ’ĕmet in Dan.10:21).  There is considered to be some ambiguity about a “great war” (Heb. sābā’ gādōl) that is referred to here as is noted by the NIV footnote that reads “true and burdensome”, but the former seems the most likely in light of the conflicts that ensue in the following in the vision of the future.  The vision concerns a message of peace, rest and blessedness it also concerns the great conflicts leading to the final conflict of the ages.

10:2-4 – Fasting by the Tigris.  Daniel was apparently so perturbed in his spirit before even receiving this vision likely because of the setbacks of the Temple project in Jerusalem that he gave himself to fasting and did so outside of Babylon itself.  That he gave up eating “choice food” and then speaks of “meat and wine” means that he had taken these up again some time after his initial training upon arriving at Babylon and proving his faithfulness to the LORD at that time.  In other words, he did not consider such things to be a rule or law for all time, but only something that called for the obedience of that appointed time to demonstrate faithfulness.  The date of his fasting is important to note because if he had been fasting for three weeks and does not end it until the twenty-fourth day of the first month that means that he fasted for right through the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover) that was to occur every year from the 15^th of Nissan, sometimes also called Abib (the first month of the year), to the 21^st which was required to be observed.  Granted that he would not make the journey back to Jerusalem, still, why would Daniel intentionally not observe one of the three Feasts that were required by the LORD (Exo.12:2; 23:15; 34:18; Deut.16:1)?  Why should Daniel give himself to fasting at all since he was well into his eighties by this time?  It is a little strange that he calls the Tigris river the “great river” since that is the normal name of the Euphrates, but it is not completely out of the question that he should have done so.  This would place him anywhere within 20 miles to a couple hundred miles of Babylon depending on where exactly along the Tigris he was.  It would seem the most likely that he was somewhere fairly nearby Babylon.

10:5-9 – The Appearance of a Man.  The description that Daniel gives of the one he sees and describes as a “man dressed in linen” suggests one who is perhaps prepared for a priestly sort of ministry (cf. Exo.28:42; Lev.6:10; 16:4), but this is also the sort of clothing of the angelic-like “men” that Ezekiel describes (Eze.9:2-3, 11; 10:2, 6-7).  He wore a golden belt and his body and face glowed.  His eyes were “like flaming torches” and arms and legs “burnished bronze” with a mighty voice of a great crowd.  This description fits very closely with that of Ezekiel 1:26-28 and Revelation 1:12-16 and this individual is so imposing that he may in fact be a theophany (that is, the appearing of God Himself) with later messengers giving the explanations to the revelation (Dan.10:10-14) in much the manner that John in the Revelation would later receive.  Why was Daniel the only one who could see the vision of this “man”?  Obviously there was something tangible about the whole experience because those who were with him became terrified and ran to hide.  Even Daniel described himself as overwhelmed by the vision.

10:10-14 – Affirmation of Daniel.  It may be that the one who touched him and speaks in verses 10-14 is not the same as the one in verses 5-6 because if the first one was in fact a theophany then there would have been no need for the help of another (Michael) and he would not have come to only explain.  Further, the Hebrew does not designate that there was only one individual there and seems to suggest as in previous visionary visits that there may have been more than one present (cf. Dan.8:13).  Daniel is made to tremble on his hands and knees by the touch of this messenger who affirms him as “highly esteemed”.  This touch accompanied by the command to consider what he would be instructed and to stand was sufficient to bring him to his feet even though he was still in a trembling state.  Though Daniel was “highly esteemed” by the LORD this not only did not exclude him from suffering but seems to have necessitated it at some level, just as it did for Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. Luke 1:30; 2:35) and Jesus himself who was the beloved of the Father.  As it was for Daniel, so for us, it should never be taken for-granted that understanding comes natural without applying ourselves to intentionally seek to understand and humble ourselves before God. 

The messenger assures Daniel that he came in response to the prayers of Daniel, but was held back by the “prince of the Persian kingdom” for twenty one days apparently the whole time Daniel was praying.  However, he was assisted by “Michael” who is here called “one of the chief princes,” who enabled him to be released from the struggle and bring the message to Daniel.  Michael is mentioned here and Daniel 12:1, Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.  In each account, he is one who engages in conflict and particularly in Daniel 12:1 defends the people of Israel.  He is called an “archangel” or “chief (first) angel” in Jude 9 and as such is the only one named in the Protestant canon of Scripture.  It is unclear just who the “prince of the Persians” and the “king (lit. ‘kings’) of Persia” are, but the likeliest explanation at least for the former is some sort of wicked spiritual power.  The latter may be a reference to the actual king (or kings) of Persia or to some other form of these spiritual powers. 

Certainly there is nothing clear here concerning a structure of authorities by which one can (or should) build a highly structured doctrine of spiritual powers and authorities beyond this very basic teaching that there are actual spiritual beings and realities at work throughout the kingdoms of this world.  We cannot (nor should not) simply assume that the kingdoms of this world are all that there is because this is all we may be used to through our own experiences (cf. Eph.6:10-18).  There are other references to some sort of gods of the nations that may represent some reality behind them (even when a prophet like Isaiah will confess that they are really “nothing”; cf. Isa.46:2; Jer.46:25; 49:3; see also Deut.32:8 in the LXX and Qumran; Ps.96:4).  Since it is not revealed in Scripture how these conflicts among these “princes” actually took place…it would be mere conjecture to make suppositions about how this was and is carried out.  The message that was so necessary for him to bring to Daniel was a message about the future and not even about the present.  This was something which Daniel seemed more concerned about.  What might this say about our present struggles and reality?

10:15-11:1 – The Strengthening of Daniel.  Once again Daniel was overwhelmed and bowed over and once again was touched, but this time on the lips.  Why would he be touched on the lips?  To affirm the message he was being given and his ability to speak it and to allow him to confess his own sense of helplessness and humility.  Again he was touched and this time given strength and reaffirmed concerning the LORD’s estimation of him.  In what sense does the word of the LORD to Daniel to “Peace!  Be strong now!  Be strong.” become the strengthening of Daniel joined to the touch?  The message and the touch are not simply passive work, but active and empowering in the life of Daniel as in us.  Why would the messenger return to the fight against the “prince of Persia”?  The engagement will be taken up until the “prince of Greece” would come.  We can only surmise that this would entail a further conflict among the “princes”, but this refers to a time in our own history that would not happen until about 331BC with the rise of the Greeks under Alexander (or perhaps slightly sooner). 

Before he left he assured Daniel that what he would share with him was already written down in the “Book of Truth” which is apparently a way of referring to what has been determined to be by the LORD.  He notes that only Michael supports him against the princes of Persia and Greece.  The messenger had taken his stand with Michael two years before against the “prince of Persia” and it would appear that this was to protect “Darius” (though this is less than certain).  Why should these struggles among beings that are not human require long term conflict when the LORD could easily resolve them?  For the same reason that this world could quickly be redeemed and all wickedness be dealt with in a moment without the conflict of the righteous struggling against sin and principalities and powers until the last Day.  The reason is that it all works for the ultimate glory of God as demonstrated in the cross, resurrection and coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ who will judge the living and the dead.  It is that in the end, he might be demonstrated to be supreme over all (Col.1:15-20).

Remember Me...

As I was reading Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007) today I was struck by several comments made in regard to "remembering" (specifically in reference to John's Gospel account) and how they might relate to the "remembering" of the Lord's Supper. In light of the "remembering" concerning Christ that occurs after the resurrection of our Lord (and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit), there is something profound that occurs at the table of the Lord.

The Resurrection teaches us a new way of seeing...it makes it possible to enter into the interiority of the events into the intrinsic coherence of God's speaking and acting (pg.232).

The "remembering" is not simply an intellectual assent to bare facts (like remembering some event that occured in the past), but a "remembering" that is vivified by the Holy Spirit; it gives life to those who "remember" and death to those who partake of it in an "unworthy manner" and thereby are disdaining the body and blood of Christ (see 1 Cor.11:27-30). It is a "remembering" that incorporates us into the hidden life of Christ; incorporates us into the very real life of the Trinity.  It is a "remembering" that changes everything...it is both of thought, word and action.  It is a "remembering" that bridges the gap of 2000 years and participates in the ever present life of the crucified and resurrected Lord Jesus who is now seated at the right hand of the Father where we are already present with Him (Eph.2:6) and where He is already present with us by His indwelling and empowering Spirit (Matt.28:20).

This remembering is an understanding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; by remembering, the believer enters into the depth of the event and sees what could not be seen on an immediate and merely superficial level....This remembering is no mere psychological or intellectual process; it is a pneumatic event [i.e., an event imbued with the Pneuma, or the Holy Spirit]. The Church's remembering is not merely a private affair; it transcends the sphere of our own human understanding and knowing. It is a being-led by the Holy Spirit, who shows us the connectedness of Scripture, the connection between word and reality, and, in doing that, leads us "into all truth" (pgs.233-234).

I certainly reject transubstantiation concerning Communion, but affirm a real presence of Christ by the Holy Spirit that does not actually involve a changing of the elements of the bread and cup. Christ is truly present in the "remembering" that is empowered by the Holy Spirit...the "remembering" that proclaims Christ Jesus death until he comes again (1 Cor.11:26).  May we "remember" until that glorious Day!

2 Kings 16-17 -- The LORD’s Presence—Promise and Threat

16:1 – Ahaz – son of Jotham. He reigned for (3 years as coregent then another) 16 years (735-715 BC) over Judah. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD unlike his father David and even acted like the kings of Israel (16:2; II Chron.28:1-2). He made idols and worshipped them (16:4; II Chron.28:2, 4, 24-25), offered his son (or sons – II Chron.28:3) in the fire (16:3 – apparently as an idolatrous act – see Deut.12:31; 18:9-10). Ahaz suffered a great defeat (II Chron.28:5-15 even though the captives of Judah were eventually returned) and while under siege by Pekah king of Israel and Rezin king of Aram he refused to trust in the LORD rejecting the word of the LORD through Isaiah the prophet and instead relied upon Tiglath Pileser III of Assyria (16:5-9; Isa.7-8) by bribing him (16:8). While delivering the bribe to Tiglath Pileser III he noticed the Assyrian altar and commanded a replicas immediate construction by Uriah the priest (see also Isa.8:2) and placement in the Temple of the LORD. This new altar was meant to replace the original altar which was then used by Ahaz for his own sacrifices (16:10-16) to the gods of Damascus (II Chron.28:22-23). In some sense Ahaz was following other Priestly-Kings like David (II Sam. 6:17-18) and Solomon (I Kings 8:63) – albeit in a wicked manner – so he seemed to emulate more especially Jeroboam I of Israel (I Kings 12:32-33).

17:1 – Hoshea – son of Elah. He assassinated Pekah king of Israel and reigned for 9 years (732-722 BC) over Israel doing evil in the eyes of the LORD, but was not considered as bad as others before him (17:3). Hoshea payed Shalmaneser V king of Assyria tribute for some time but quit and sent instead for help from Egypt (17:3-4) which was weak at this time due to many internal conflicts and therefore not able to help appropriately. His trust in Egypt was against the word of the LORD (Isa.30-31) and thus Hoshea was captured by Shalmaneser V, Samaria fell after a three year siege, and Israel was deported into exile according to the word of the LORD (see Lev.26; Deut.27-28; I Kings 14:14-16; Jer.31:15).

17:7-23 – The author of Kings makes explicit (just in case anyone already missed the critique) why all of this happened…Israel (and Judah was included in this prophetic sermon) had ultimately broken the covenant with the LORD and disobeyed all of the prophets sent to call back to faithful obedience (17:13, 20).

17:8, 11, 15 – “as the nations”? Israel is accused of acting like both the nations the LORD drove out of the land and as the nations all around them. Is this the struggle also of the Church…to be a people who belong peculiarly to the LORD who live differently than the people of the world? (see Deut.10:15; I Sam.12:22; Titus 2:14; I Pet.2:9)

17:9 – “The Israelites secretly did things against the LORD their God”? (If “secretly” is the correct translation – see Konkel NIVAC 577) Does the LORD see things done in ‘secret’? (see Ps.90:8; Matt.6:18; Eph.5:12)

17:24-28 – The Gentiles newly settled in the land of Israel appear to have a better understanding of the relation of the LORD to the land and the necessary obedience, but this is only short lived (17:29-41).

17:33, 44 – They “worshipped (feared) the LORD, but…”? (see Hos.6:4-10)

17:39 – To who are the LORD’s promises directed? (see II Sam.7:7-17; Isa.6:11-13; Hos.11:8-11; Amos 9:11-15) There is a promise of a “remnant”; thus the naming of Shearjashub (meaning “a remnant will return”) son of Isaiah (Isa.7:1-10). The promise is ultimately fulfilled in “Immanuel” meaning “God with us” (Isa.7-8; Matt.1:22-23). The presence of God is essential to the promise being fulfilled, but it must be remembered that the one who is both a “promise” is also simultaneously a “threat.” “The choice is not whether God will be present; the choice is only in the response to that presence” (Konkel NIVAC pg. 569).

When "Head" Doesn't Mean "Source"

A blogger I follow closely is John Hobbins.  He posted an intriguing (and controversial) blog post about the meaning of kephalē (κεφαλή, “head”) as used by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and Eph. 5 on his blog Ancient Hebrew Poetry.  He calls (by citing the NIDB article by Max Turner) for a meaning of "head" instead of "source" which has tended to be the way for contemporary society (whether egalitarian or complementatian or anything in between) to avoid the issue and make Paul say whatever they want to hear him say instead of allowing him to say whatever it is that he actually said.  It is refreshing to read such posts and also a challenge to not make the biblical writers say what we want to hear, but to hear what they say.

Note the comments on his blog where people happily attack this proposal! :-)  What do you think?