by dgp 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Leo:
one could still talk about how throughout that time Judea and later Palestine were ruled over by other nations to the south and to the north.
We should now change that to "the East (the Palestinian Authority), the Middle (Israel, sort of) and the West (Jordan)" these days .
I had to wait until I was home to look up this reference illustrating some more of the Watchtower's sleight of hand when it comes to this section of the book of Daniel.
Daniel 11:35 reads, "And some of those having insight will be made to stumble, in order to do a refining work because of them and to do a cleansing and to do a whitening, until the time of [the] end; because it is yet for the time appointed."
When does the Society claim the "time of the end" started? The usual answer is 1914. So really according to their chronology the limit of this portion of Daniel's prophecy would expire in 1914. But the problem is that they apply this section of Daniel to events that happened after 1914, during the Cold War of 1948-1989.
So how does the Society navigate this gaffe? By claiming that the "time of the end" mentioned at Daniel 11:35 is not the TIME OF THE END, but rather a generic time of the end for this particular event. They say:
"Hence, at Daniel 11:35, "the time of the end" must relate to the end of the period of time needed for God's people to be refined while enduring the assault of the King of the North."
However, just a few verse later at Daniel 11:40, the go right back to interpreting "the time of the end" in the typical Watchtower fashion, applying it to the time period that began in 1914 leading up to Armageddon.
Who would have guessed...it's Canada. PM Harper is buying up fighter jets...
satinka
New light!
The Watchtower announces that
the King of the North and the King of the South
are joining forces with
the Wicked Witch of the West!
Villabolo
Leolaia, so is it fair to say that the whole thing is simply blown out of proportion, and then the kings of north and south keep changing as circumstances demand?
No, not really. The passage is concerned with the succession of kings of Syria and Egypt leading up to the Maccabean crisis. Reading ch. 11 with the related visions in ch. 7, 8 and 9 makes it quite clear that the kings of the north and south do not extend far beyond the Maccabean crisis and that all four climax in the blasphemous, contemptible king identified in ch. 11 as Antiochus Epiphanes. The passages referring to Antiochus Epiphanes just do not fit the circumstances of later rulers without conspicuous straining.
When does the Society claim the "time of the end" started? The usual answer is 1914.
And you know when the "time of the end" probably was for the author of the book of Daniel? When the book was publically released.
The Society claims that the unsealing is a figurative unsealing of "understanding", but this is again an eisegetical move. The plainest reading of the text is simply that the putative sixth century BC author sealed the book for a later age (the Maccabean age), and it would be read by those who needed to hear the message when it is unsealed. And if you follow the apocalyptic survey of history in ch. 9 and ch. 11, the author truly did not see much further history beyond the events of the Maccabean crisis. The same goes for the Animal Apocalypse, written around the same time.
The sealing motif was an internal plot device intended to explain why no one had seen this book until the time it was publically released. The same motif occurs in other apocalyptic works, such as the Assumption of Moses and 4 Ezra. It is for this reason that John of Patmos reversed the motif in Revelation; the book was not to be sealed because people needed to read the message right away. This includes the letters to the seven Asian churches, definitely not meant for people of a much later age. "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near" (Revelation 22:10).
Since the book of Daniel is in the Bible, and has been in it for a very long time, I find it hard to believe that this "time of the end" is anything recent.
My understanding is that scholars generally view the events up to Daniel 11:35 following closely to history leading up to the rule of Antiochus, but after that verse, particularly from forty onward, there is a shift where it gets predictive, and the verses don't quite mirror the final events with that ruler.
I was really astounded the first time I read the book of Maccabees because it followed so closely with Daniel, such as the whole part about this ruler installing the disgusting thing in the temple.
But here is where I have questions. It would seem that Jewish people of Jesus time were familiar with these accounts and the history of the Maccabean revolt. With this in mind I find it interesting that Jesus is quoted as calling attention to this and yet applies Daniel prophecy about the disgusting thing standing in the Holy Place to some future event.
My understanding is that scholars generally view the events up to Daniel 11:35 following closely to history leading up to the rule of Antiochus, but after that verse, particularly from forty onward, there is a shift where it gets predictive, and the verses don't quite mirror the final events with that ruler.
Right.
I was really astounded the first time I read the book of Maccabees because it followed so closely with Daniel, such as the whole part about this ruler installing the disgusting thing in the temple.
Yup.
But here is where I have questions. It would seem that Jewish people of Jesus time were familiar with these accounts and the history of the Maccabean revolt. With this in mind I find it interesting that Jesus is quoted as calling attention to this and yet applies Daniel prophecy about the disgusting thing standing in the Holy Place to some future event.
This is simply in accordance with Jewish interpretation of Daniel at the time. It is the same thing with the interpretation of the "fourth kingdom" as Rome. This understanding became popular in the first century BC when Rome became the dominant power, as can be seen at Qumran. Older soures, such as the third Sibylline Oracle, still view Greece as the "fourth kingdom". Within Daniel, the Romans only appear in passing as the "Kittim" of ch. 11. But the older interpretation did not die out. So for instance the Syriac Peshitta has glosses in ch. 7 identifying the fourth kingdom as "Greece" and the little horn as "Antiochus". The two interpretations co-existed; the late first century AD apocalypse of 4 Ezra for instance recognized that the original interpretation given to Daniel was superseded by the later "Roman" interpretation of the fourth kingdom (12:10-13). Josephus also held to a duality of interpretations, holding to a first-century AD fulfillment as well as an Antiochene one wrt the little horn:
"Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the plain of Susa, and he informs us that God interpreted the appearance of this vision after the following manner: He said that the ram signified the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and the horns were those kings that were to reign in them ... that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks ... and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the Temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7).
Later writers, such as Julius Africanus and Eusebius, gave up to four different interpretations of the same vision (wrt ch. 9).
I think it's great that the society can admit they don't know something. It's the best of their doctrines.
Leolaia - Thank you for the interesting references. Do you have any period references where the events of Daniel 11:30-35 are applied to Rome, or any other entity distinct from Greece/Antiochus IV, apart from what is recorded in the Olivet discourse in the gospels? Even at Matthew 24:15 it may be that the events of Antiochus IV are still in view, but are just simply being used by way of example. Such as, when you catch sight of Rome in the temple, just like you've read that Greece did in the past, it's time to get out of dodge. It is also interesting that this element is present in the gospel that is written to a Hebrew audience, familiar with their scripture and history.
