Leolaia
Post 13135
The theme of Daniel 4 which the Kingdom of God obviously gives the experience of Nebuchadnezzer a much greater fulfillment as that Kingdom was eschatological as many scholars agree. At this stage the only contemporary scholars who support such a view are the 'celebrated' WT scholars and my good self. However, on this matter I have not research this subject to the depth required to be absolute sure about this for example it may be the case that there are scholars who have published in German may share such an interpretation. I also forgot to mention C.I. Scofield who if my memory serves me correctly in his classic Reference Bible did endorse this interpretation.
No I am not, in fact one such clergman Clarence Larkin published charts on Dispensational Theology in 1918 which showed the importance of the Gentile Times beginning in 606 BCE with no precise end date but base also on Luke 21:24. By the way he was no friend of the Russellite movement as he regarded such as 'false teachers'.
You need to name the critical sources that allege that Daniel 4 and 5 are more closely related than ch.2 which whatever the case as each chapter in Daniel bears some relationship one with another as all such chapters are part of a coherent whole anyway.
I disgree, most of the chapters in Daniel require modern day interpretation even though in most cases an immediate interpretation by the seer was made becaus eof the simple fact that such prophecies had to with that manifestation of that eschatological Kinbgdom of God. Further, Daniel was told by the angel in 12:4 to seal up the book until the time of the end which obviously that a much fuller disclosure of the book was intended.
I have given you reference to Waltke's book so just look it up if you want further information.
Daniel 4 discusses the simple fact that God's typical kingdom as represented by Judah would be bound or trampled on by foreign powers until such time as that Kingdom was rightfully restored. So, in historic terms Jerusalem which represented that Kingdom or God's sovereignty over the earth was restric ted for a period of seven times by the abasement of that Gentile Ruler for seven literal years . This trampling of Jerusalem is touched on in Daniel 9 in connection with the appearance of the Messiah and was a common theme of Luke culminating with his observation on past and futurfe history in Luke 21:24.
Sorry, the text makes no sense at all if it is read as a simple story of a king's chastisement, the story has too much imagery or metaphors to be simply considered as simple story. The whole context of the narrative and its place within the book of Daniel proves that even in literary terms the picture given is much bigger. Theologically the story cannot be considered as just that because the vocabulary is eschatological in character as well as with the rest of the Daniel.
Thank you for Ginsburg's comment and I shall note that for future reference.
My comment about the successive trampling or tramplings of Jerusalem as discussed in Daniel and Luke is that these events in history are very much consistent with Daniel 4. Daniel 4 does not refer directly to such events as you have well described and I must say that I agree with you to some extent however there is a matter which I suspect you have overlooked at the expense of your linguistic approach. I woulsd argue that there is a theological view which permeates the historian Luke and squares very nicely with a theological interpreation of Dan.4. How so, recent scholarship especially from the time of the late Robert Maddox who I was priviliged to have been taught by at the University of Sydney during the late 1970's did much pioneering research on Luke -Acts and its Purpose. Other scholars have pursued such research and one such major study of which I have a copy is The Destruction of Jerusalem According to Luke's Gospel: A Historical-Typological Moral by Charles Homer Giblin in the Analecta Biblica, 1985, Biblical Institute Press, Rome. Such theological studies discuss Jerusalem with its past experience and its eschatological role Although such studies have not endorsed Dan. 4 in way what is endorsed is that the antitypical interpretation of Dan4 in respects to Jerusalem and God's Kingdom do indeed converge.
In short, what I would argue is that current scholarship on Luke as a historian and theologian who was concerned with the fate of Jerusalem provides a firm basis for that antitypical interpretation of Dan 4 in conncection with Jerusalem, Gentile Nations and the Kingdom of God. Luke brings all these together.
scholar JW