Diotrephes

During the last generation of the first century, the “fellowship situation” can best be described as chaotic. Paul’s last writings are far from optimistic, and John’s letters show an elderly apostle — the last of his generation — contending against the practices of men who scarcely if at all deserve the name ‘brother’ (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, Xd 108:210).

Such a man was Diotrephes — characteristic of a certain spirit within the ecclesias. Diotrephes was domineering, self-assertive, and arrogant. Defying the loving authority of the aged John, he could — so it seems — “cast out” of fellowship (ct Joh 6:37) with impunity those associating with the apostles, or, for that matter, anyone of whom he disapproved. Like some modern brethren of the same stamp, he also “cast out” those who failed to “cast out” the brethren he had “cast out” — in the ultimate extension of the “guilt-by-association” syndrome.

AE in his article points out that, with ease of communication in the Roman Empire, it was common for preachers to travel from ecclesia to ecclesia on lengthy missionary journeys. Such activities posed problems of fellowship then as now. Wherever the ecclesia was to which Diotrephes belonged, it included as members both those who rejected these preacher brethren, and those who welcomed them. John appears, then, to be presuming on his almost universal standing in the brotherhood, when he “interferes” in a tricky internal affair of another ecclesia. Notice, however, that his “interference” — if it may be so termed — is not for the disfellowshiping of any individual, but rather is for the acceptance of “the brethren” (3Jo 1:5). And John does not even counsel the disfellowship of the despicable Diotrephes!

The phrase “casting out” (3Jo 1:10) is a very harsh and cruel term: “If the Master himself was able to conduct most of his preaching within the synagogue system, however grudgingly received by those in power, he had no illusions as to the long-term fate of the church following his ascension to the Father. ‘Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils (Greek Sanhedrins, ie local courts) and flog you in their synagogues’ (Mat 10:17, RSV)” (AE, ibid 16).

Examine closely and without prejudice this first-century picture of inter-ecclesial affairs. How similar it is to our own day: an imperfectly joined network of congregations, with no universally recognized leader (even the apostles met frequent opposition); an arrangement calling for forbearance and patience and tolerance, not to mention the occasional compromise! Certainly not the place for would-be leaders to issue “bulls” of excommunication either against or on behalf of uninformed brethren.

Notice that even the apostle John does not declare, ‘Disfellowship Diotrephes.’ Notice also the presumed “conflict”: Gaius will receive “the brethren”; Diotrephes will not receive them. And yet they are considered — by no less than an inspired apostle — to be “in fellowship” with one another. Sometimes inconsistencies and anomalies exist in our midst. Patience and love are required to “sort out” these issues, without destroying or driving away those who have not quite “got it right”!

“Wherever there is intolerance; wherever we find conditions of communion among Christians imposed, which Christ hath not clearly enjoined; wherever creeds and modes of worship are enforced by human power, and men made to forfeit any of their civil rights, or are stigmatized on these accounts, there is the spirit which is not of God. Wherever one Christian, or a number of Christians, assumes the seat of authority and judgment in the Church of Christ, wherever they call for fire to destroy those who dissent from them, or only exclude them from their communion and affection, there is a portion of the spirit of Anti-christ, which has so long opposed itself to the benign principles of the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, has been the cause of so many evils to humanity, and the occasion of making the inconsiderate esteem the amiable yet distinct and uncompromising religion of Jesus, as a source of mischief, instead of benevolence… Alas, how much of this spirit remains amongst us all! How few have learned that, ‘In Christ circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God’ ” (JT, Herald, 1850).

Disciples, slow comprehension

Joh 2:22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Joh 2:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” [ Psalm 69:9 ]

Joh 4:31-34 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

Joh 6:19 When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, [ Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers) ] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified.

Joh 8:27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.

Joh 12:16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

Joh 13:7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

Joh 14:4-9 You know the way to the place where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know [ Some early manuscripts If you really have known me, you will know ] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Joh 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

Joh 16:17 Some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?”

Mat 16:7-11 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Mar 8:17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

Luk 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Luk 24:8 Then they remembered his words.

Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Distance and fellowship

This is one of the mottoes which through long and perhaps careless use acquires almost the force of Scripture. Under this heading or something similar, some brethren would contend that great distances and lack of personal interaction do not mitigate one’s “fellowship” responsibility at all. In other words, an ecclesia (or an individual for that matter) must become acquainted with the facts in any alleged wrongdoing no matter where around the world, and take “fellowship” action, just as if the problem were local.

The especially sad thing about this line of reasoning is that it appeals for support to the very principles that should be the most uplifting and comforting to a believer in Christ — that is, the essential worldwide unity of faith of believers with Christ and one another — and makes these wonderful ideals the basis for unwarranted and hasty dismemberment of the spiritual Body. In the ultimate sense, neither distance nor time is a barrier to Biblical “fellowship”, for it was Christ himself who told the disciples, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mat 28:20). But only a very impractical person — or one thoroughly bent on a negative course of action — could fail to comprehend that distance, as well as time, can be a mitigating factor in the ability of fallible mortals to get at all the facts of a doubtful and disputed matter. Sometimes it is the course of wisdom to admit one’s inability to judge aright; sometimes the wisest words are simply: ‘I just don’t know for sure’.

Although in certain circumstances RR is made out as a foremost exponent of this unrealistic fellowship approach, it is clear when considering all of his actions and writings that the practical outworking of such a “cut-and-dried” approach was quite different from the impression given by a few random citations. An actual example, which concerned the brethren in my locality, serves well as illustration:

In 1883 a group of Texas brethren submitted a “position paper” concerning a regional controversy to The Christadelphian, requesting its publication. (The exact nature of the difficulty is irrelevant to our present purposes.) Brother Roberts printed the ecclesial news only, omitting the statement as to fellowship difficulties in Texas. The comments he added to the correspondence give his reason:

“The publication of your statement would only raise a controversy, which could not only do no good to any of us, but involve others in troubles best localized. We can afford to refer all doubtful matters to the tribunal of Christ, not doubtful, perhaps, to those who see clearly on the spot, but doubtful to those at a distance, who can only see them through the medium of conflicting representations” (“Fraternal Gathering”, Xd 20:528).

If it appears that this position is at variance with RR’s thoughts elsewhere given, I can only say that it is not my desire to portray anyone long deceased — especially one of the spiritual stature of Robert Roberts — as inconsistent. However, it should never be forgotten that no man, no matter how wise in the Bible, no matter how well respected for his work’s sake, no man (but Christ) has ever been perfect, or perfectly consistent.

A balanced view of Christadelphian history leads to startling, but understandable, conclusions: When controversies plagued large centers of Christadelphians — like Birmingham, London, or Adelaide — and touched brethren in editorial capacity, or otherwise well-known or influential, then those troubles were quickly exported to the most remote corners. But when a similar controversy arose in an isolated area, Texas for example, it was generally localized and ignored; thus it died out after a few unsettling years. There seems to be no more rational explanation as to why the “partial inspiration” question, for example, is still extant, but the “priesthood” question and other esoteric matters died well-deserved deaths. One is forced to the belief that the latter-day body of Christ would have been much better off had more such questions been localized, and ecclesias at a distance been allowed to concern themselves with their own affairs only.

“We must keep firmly to two rules, which might be considered by extremists to be contradictory, but which are complementary. All ecclesias as a basis of co-operation must acknowledge the same fundamental truths, while at the same time each ecclesia must have the right of judging any doubtful case. The first maintains the truth; the second provides for an ecclesia taking account of all the factors in any borderline case, these factors being only known to the members of that ecclesia. There must be mutual respect for each other’s judgments” (JC, “A House Divided”, Xd 94:187).

“When fire breaks out there is need for calm, careful action. Panic is disastrous. Fanning of the flames is foolish. Spreading the fire to other places would be criminal. When controversy breaks out there is need for calm, careful thought, and all the facts of the fire drill have their spiritual counterpart. Our history as a community sadly illustrates the dangers of spreading controversy, and the evil of provoking controversy…. Let us be on the Lord’s side to fight for unity, to put out fires of controversy, to rebuke those who would spread the fires afield. Together let us all pray that Christ may not be divided today” (H Osborn, “Is Christ Divided?”, Xd 102:214).

Divorce

“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (1Co 7:10,11).

In relation to brothers and sisters in Christ, we believe divorce is contrary to the commandments of Christ; and that if a believer is divorced, remarriage to another partner should be out of the question as long as any possibility remains for a reconciliation.

“But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman”, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Gen 20:20b-25).

“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate'” (Mat 19:3-6).

God’s purpose was clearly that man and woman joined together in marriage should be joined together for life. Only the death of one of the parties should terminate the bond. It is easy to see various reasons for this. The very method of Eve’s formation (“bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”) laid the basis for this indissolubility; the mental and moral qualities of man call for it; and the purposes of marriage in the increase and nurture of the race demand it.

It is plain that estrangements and separations between husbands and wives, whenever and wherever they exist, are incompatible with the high standard of conduct which the Bible sets forth. In the light of this exalted teaching, it is considered that where estrangement is threatened between husband and wife it is a Christian duty to seek patiently and actively a renewal or resumption of normal relationship.

Not only is this the duty of husband to wife and wife to husband, but also of those who can offer wise counsel with patient understanding. Where estrangement followed by separation has already happened, and while reunion is still a possibility, the pursuit of divorce and remarriage is a definite negation of the teaching of the Lord — because the successful pursuit of such a “solution” removes forever the possibility of reconciliation. These considerations apply with added force where there are children to consider.

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery” (Mat 5:31,32).

” ‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery'” (Mat 19:7-9).

Divorce obtained by a brother or sister on any ground except that allowed by Jesus is a sin which cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, the ecclesia should not exclude the possibility of true repentance after the fact.

Furthermore, while remarriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, are contrary to the highest ideals as expressed by Christ, it is possible to envision circumstances in which it would be unjust for an ecclesia to lay down a course of action without discrimination.

In dealing with all who come short of the divine ideal, our aim should be, not only to admonish and rebuke, but also to restore. While trying to maintain to the fullest the high standards of Christ’s teaching, we must beware of slipping unconsciously into an attitude toward offenders which the Lord would condemn. To achieve the right balance in these matters in the spirit of our Lord’s teaching, calls for prayerful and persistent effort and humility of mind.

Divorce and remarriage statement

The following statement was prepared in 1950 by the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Christadelphian Ecclesia of that time; the author of this book having a part in drafting it. It appeared in “The Christadelphian” for July, 1950.

In dealing recently with a case of divorce and re-marriage, the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Ecclesia have given long and anxious consideration to the principles which should govern our attitude in such cases. Similar problems have arisen in other ecclesias and in existing circumstances may be expected to arise more frequently. It has therefore been suggested to our Arranging Brethren that a statement of the principles which have guided us in dealing with our own case may be of some service also to others.

A declaration of these principles was contained in a statement considered and endorsed by the Birmingham Central Ecclesia at special meetings… the declaration being in the following terms:

(1) The sanctity of the marriage relationship is set forth by Jesus and by his Apostles in very exalted terms. Its unique quality compared with other standards is based upon the fundamental principles expressed in Genesis (Gen 2:24) and is also set forth ideally in the union of Christ with his Church. In Revelation there appears the vision of the Marriage of the Lamb to his bride, for which marriage “his wife hath made herself ready” (Rev 19:7,8).

(2) The duties and obligations of husbands to wives and wives to husbands are also set forth with impressive beauty by Paul, notably in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 5:22-23) in which the love of Christ for his Church, and his giving of himself for it, is exhibited as the ideal to be emulated by wives and husbands.

(3) The teaching of the prophets reinforces these exalted views. For example, in Hosea the enormity of the sin of adultery applied in figure to Israel is denounced with severity on the one hand, while the appeal to the back-sliding nation to forsake this evil way and return to the Lord is made with extraordinary tenderness of thought and feeling. In the prophet Malachi, there is the passage, “The Lord the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away”, and the context makes it clear that God detests the insincere repentance on the part of any Israelite who has dealt treacherously with the wife of his youth. The teaching of Jesus himself as to the duties and obligations of the married state is set forth in several places in the gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sets his own teaching against what was said of old time.

(4) According to Mat 5:31, Jesus said: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

In Mat 19:3-5, in answer to the question put to him by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus took them back to the divine intention at creation: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (v 6).

To the second question by the Pharisees, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” Jesus replied that it was due to the hardness of men’s hearts that Moses suffered this precept. This teaching maintains uncompromisingly the sanctity of the marriage relationship as set forth throughout the Scriptures.

(5) The disciples were astonished at the uncompromising nature of these declarations by Jesus, when according to Matthew, after he had thus declared himself, they remarked, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”. The Lord’s answer is of great significance. He recognizes that the standpoint he has put forward is beyond the strength and determination of some; he did not modify in any way what he had already taught, but added, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”.

(6) It is plain from this teaching that estrangements between husbands and wives whenever and wherever they exist are incompatible with the high standard of conduct which the Scriptures thus set forth, and still more so is the existence of separation and the pursuit of divorce. In the light of this exalted teaching, it is considered that where estrangement is threatened between husband and wife it is a Christian duty to seek patiently and actively a renewal or resumption of normal relationship. Not only is this the duty of husband to wife and wife to husband but of those whose relationships to these would enable them to offer wise counsel with patient understanding and due recognition of the frailty of human nature. Where estrangement followed by separation has already taken place, and while re-union is still a possibility, the pursuit of divorce proceedings and re-marriage is a negation of the teaching of the Lord, inasmuch as the successful pursuit of such proceedings removes for ever the possibility of reconciliation. These considerations apply with added force where there are children.


A great change having taken place in current social standards as regards marriage contracts, and ignorance of Scripture teaching having become increasingly widespread, we believe it is essential that all applicants for baptism should assent to these principles; that with applicants who have previously been divorced, or having been divorced have re-married, this assent is especially necessary; and that before baptizing such, special consideration should be given to their knowledge, state of mind and general outlook regarding these principles. There is additional need to emphasize this course of action because of the recognition of desertion by the State as a valid legal ground for seeking divorce.

Acceptance of these principles should be required of all our members, but when a brother or sister fails to observe them there inevitably arises a separate and more difficult question. What action should the ecclesia then take? It is in the answer to this question that different points of view are found. There are those who would lay down a rigid rule which would disfellowship any brother or sister who obtains a divorce or marries a divorced person in all circumstances except those provided for by the “exceptive clause” recorded by Matthew. It would follow from this that any brother or sister so offending could only be received back into fellowship if he or she separated from the other party to the marriage. Those therefore who wish to lay down a rigid rule must face this consequence of it and must be prepared to call on the parties to separate. It should be borne in mind, however, that there are circumstances in which separation creates more problems than it solves, and many brethren and sisters are, therefore, unwilling to commit themselves irrevocably to a rule which would require separation as a condition of continuance in fellowship without regard for or any consideration of such circumstances. It is the unanimous view of the Arranging Brethren that we ought not so to commit ourselves.

While it must be recognized that divorce obtained by a brother or sister on any ground except that allowed by Jesus is a sin which cannot be overlooked, the ecclesia should not exclude the possibility of repentance. Further, while re-marriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, are repugnant to the spirit of Christ’s teaching, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which it would be unjust to lay down a course of ecclesial action without discrimination. The Arranging Brethren therefore consider that the present practice in dealing with known breaches of the Lord’s commands should be maintained: where divorce, or re-marriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, occurs, an interview should be sought, and withdrawal or other ecclesial action determined in the light of all the facts and of the principles referred to in earlier paragraphs.

In dealing with all offenders, we must remember that our aim should be, not only to admonish and rebuke, but also to restore. While endeavouring to maintain to the full the high standards of Christ’s teaching, we must beware of slipping unconsciously into an attitude towards offenders which the Lord would condemn. To achieve the right balance in these matters in the spirit of our Lord’s teaching, calls for prayerful and persistent effort and humility of mind.

Does God NEED anyone?

“Can a perfect God be ‘lonely’, or could he be perfectly happy by himself? Can a perfect God ‘need’ anything?”

We are created in the image and likeness of God. Without delving into the precise meaning of the Hebrew words, it would seem that — not too fine a point here — we are like God. If we are like God, then God must be like us. I realize, of course, that this doesn’t mean we are immortal… or that we are omnipotent, or anything like that. But… whatever God is, in a perfect or well-developed sense, we are in some imperfect, developing sense, or we have the potential (and the inherent desire) to become.

So… since we human beings are social creatures, in need of social companionship, someone to talk to, someone to be with, someone to love and be loved by… then it seems to follow that God is too — only more so.

It also stands to reason that, if the angels could have completely fulfilled God’s needs socially, there would have been no reason to create man. What is the difference between the angels and man in regard to the society of God? We might suppose that there is nothing we could ever give God in this regard that the angels can’t. But then we realize that the angels cannot be disobedient to Him. Oh, even they may need time and instruction to become more familiar with the mind and desires of God, and to learn to do exactly as He wants. But eventually they succeed and get it right. And, evidently, they are constitutionally incapable of actually disobeying him. They don’t go out on their own to become “Lucifers”!

So it could be this very potential to disobey God that makes us “better” than the angels, that is, more capable than they of supplying God’s social needs. How? Perhaps because God needs love from those who can choose freely to love Him. Perhaps because this kind of love, which can be freely given or freely withheld, is what makes our company so much more fulfilling to Him than anything the angels can supply. (More fulfilling, potentially, but also more risky, I might add. Creating human beings with freewill means that, sometimes, One creates what becomes a Hitler or a Stalin…)

Does this mean God is somehow “imperfect” or “incomplete”? With what I hope is all due reverence, I would say: ‘Yes’…in the sense that God is a “becoming” God. “I will be whom I will be”, He said. “I will become what I will become.” In other words, “I am a God who continues to reveal Himself, step by step, in a long continuing process. Paramount in that process of self-revelation is My development of a relationship with My family, My children! WHY? Because I care for… because I love… because I need… My children.”

I would say that if this view of God’s mind/character is incorrect… and the austere, indifferent, self-satisfied, “complete” “god” of Mount Olympus is the correct view… then… we would not be here discussing such a question… because we wouldn’t exist… because such a “god” would never have bothered creating us. Creatures like us would just be irritants!

What? No Bible passages? There are so many…

“It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them” (Hos 11:3,4).

How does God want Himself to be perceived by us? One way: As a strong and patient and loving father, stooping to grasp a little toddler by the hand, leading it carefully along the path… bending down to feed it. And…

“How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice! Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon” (Song 4:10,11).

…how else? As a lover desperately desirous of the company of his beloved. The Song of Songs is not just about Christ and a mystical Church. Before there was Christ and the Church, there was God and Israel. And before there was God and Israel, there was God and the individual human mind which He created.

God is looking for, yearning for a soul-mate, an eternal companion to be His sister, His bride… to share His confidences, His intimacies, His love. And there is room in His heart and His eternal purpose for an untold multitude of such companions… provided they want the role.

Oh, yes, He made all the stars in all the galaxies too!

Double negative, Hebrew

The Hebrew text occasionally has a double negative, for emphasis: Psa 9:18; 26:9; 38:1; 75:5; Isa 38:18; Deu 7:25; 33:6; Pro 6:4; 24:12; 25:27; 30:3; Exo 20:17; 2Sa 1:21.

D source, problems

One of the absolute cornerstones of the entire Documentary Hypothesis (DH) is that Deuteronomy was written during the early part of the reign of Josiah, so as to provide justification for his reforms. According to the critical scholars, the “book of the law” that was found by Hilkiah was this brand-spanking-new book of Deuteronomy, written down as a “pious fraud” so as to convince the people that the reforms of Josiah were exactly that: reforms that hearkened back to the words of Moses hundreds of years before. This issue of the dating of Deuteronomy is so important to the DH that I would like to take the time to explain the DH position just a little bit more. The easiest way to do this is to quote a few paragraphs from “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Richard Elliot Friedman.

P 23: “By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the two-source hypothesis was expanded. Scholars found evidence that there were not two major source documents in the Pentateuch after all — there were four!… [In 1805] a young German scholar, WML De Wette, observed in his doctoral dissertation that the fifth of the Five Books of Moses, the book of Deuteronomy, was strikingly different in its language from the four books that preceded it… De Wette hypothesized that Deuteronomy was a separate, fourth source.”

Pp 101-102: “The book that the priest Hilkiah said he found in the Temple in 622 BC was Deuteronomy. This is not a new discovery. [Many early church fathers held this position.] In Germany in 1805, W. M. L. De Wette investigated the origin of Deuteronomy. He argued that Deuteronomy was the book that Hilkiah handed over to King Josiah. But De Wette denied that the book was by Moses. He said that Deuteronomy was not an old, Mosaic book that had been lost for a long time and then found by the priest Hilkiah. Rather, De Wette said, Deuteronomy was written not long before it was ‘found’ in the Temple, and the ‘finding’ was just a charade. The book was written to provide grounds for Josiah’s religious reform… From the law of centralization and other matters, De Wette concluded that the book of Deuteronomy was not a long-lost document, but rather was written not long before its ‘discovery’ by Hilkiah. Though it may have been written for legitimate purposes, it was nevertheless falsely attributed to Moses. De Wette referred to it as ‘pious fraud’.”

No wonder Wellhausen, considered the father of the Documentary Hypothesis, himself described De Wette as the real father of the idea! This idea of Deuteronomy being a ‘pious fraud’ written during the time of Josiah is absolutely essential to the DH. I intend to show that it could not possibly have been written during this time period.

For starters, the reforms enacted by Josiah were not without powerful opposition. Prior to Josiah’s reign, Manasseh had reigned for 55 years and Amon had reigned for 2 years. In 2Ki 21 and 2Ch 33 we read about the idolatrous practices that went on during their reigns, and it is easy for us to forget that these practices were conducted with the assistance of professional “priests”. These were powerful people who would not have stood by and allowed Josiah to pull off this stunt of ‘”finding” a supposedly ancient book that was really just a recent creation. Now we would not expect their literature to last, although we would reasonably expect to find some hints, either in Kings, Chronicles, or prophets like Jeremiah, or their opposition. But none is to be found.

In Deuteronomy we find several things that would be expected were the book really intended as a “pious fraud” to help Josiah’s reforms along, and also several things that are either irrelevant or even potentially counterproductive to his reforms. I will now concentrate on the “expected but missing” elements, and later on the “irrelevant or potentially counterproductive” ones. Both sets are devastating to the DH.

The first of the “expected but missing” items relates to what critical scholars claim is actually a supporting element of their theory — the mention of kings in Deu 17. In Deu 17:14-20, we read of how the Israelites will one day “want a king like the nations around them”, about how this king should not multiply horses or wives for himself, and about how he should write out a copy of the law for himself so that he will constantly consider it. According to critical scholars this is just a little too neat. Surely Moses could not have written these things hundreds of years before they were fulfilled in detail. In other words, the critical scholars believe that whenever prophetic words are closely or exactly fulfilled the only reasonable explanation is that the words were not prophecy, but were rather written after the fact. Thus, they cite this section in support of the DH.

On the contrary, it must be remembered that the primary goal of Deuteronomy, according to the DH, was to provide justification for Josiah’s reforms. If that is the case, and if the writer of Deuteronomy was willing to create the supposed prophecy of Moses with regard to kings of Israel, then why stop there? Only seven vv about kings? Surely any effort at creating Deuteronomy as a work of pious fraud would have gone on, making it look as if Moses were saying that people should honor and follow any kings who do obey the law. Where are the words about a king supporting the priesthood? And if these words were written in a way that condemned the particular weaknesses of Solomon, where are the words that condemn the idolatrous practices of Manasseh and other unfaithful kings? It seems ridiculous to suppose that the writer of this pious fraud would condemn Solomon’s practices but not the practices or the kings previous to Josiah, especially when (a) these later practices were the ones that Josiah was trying to get rid of, and (b) these later practices were the height of the evils conducted by the kings of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Deuteronomy also says absolutely nothing that deals with the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. By the time of Josiah the northern kingdom had come and gone, and only the southern kingdom of Judah was left. Where are the words in Deuteronomy in which Moses exhorts those of the faithful remnant to learn from the lessons of what would happen to their unfaithful brethren?

The next item concerns another item that critical scholars use to bolster their theory about Deuteronomy. This relates to the phrase “beyond the Jordan” or “on the other side of the Jordan”. At issue is the opening verse of the book, the first part of which reads “These are the words which Moses hath spoken unto all Israel, beyond the Jordan.” (YLT — I cite this one here because in the refs in Deu and Jos where this phrase literally occurs in the Heb, most modern translations seek to obviate the confusion by wording the translation less than literally, which in this case obscures the evidence.) Why, the critical scholars ask, would Moses describe the side of the Jordan that he was on as “beyond the Jordan”? The critical scholars submit that this is a mistake in the “pious fraud”. But an honest look into the phrase reveals that, just as “Transjordan” has been used in modern times to describe the area east of the Jordan even by those in the region, so Moses used this phrase properly. Even in Deu, “beyond the Jordan” is used in Deu 3:8,20,25; and Deu 11:30 to describe the area west of the Jordan. If you read these in context they might not seem like problems because the speaker is admittedly on the eastern side of the Jordan at the time the words were spoken, but in Jos 9:1 and Jos 22:7 we come to a different situation. In these refs the speaker is on the west side of the Jordan, and refers to the west side as “beyond the Jordan”. This is permissible because in context the speaker has been dealing with the eastern part of the Jordan, and is now referring back to the western part. In Deu 1:1; 4:41,46,47,49, Moses is likewise “permitted” to speak of the side of the Jordan that he is on as “beyond the Jordan” because in context he is exhorting the Israelites concerning how they ought to live once they cross over.

If Deuteronomy was written as a “pious fraud” to provide justification of Josiah’s reforms, then why does it deal with so many things that are irrelevant to Josiah’s reforms, along with some things that would actually speak against them?

For example, in Deu 20, there are laws about how warfare is to be conducted by the Israelites. These have nothing to do with any of the events of Josiah’s reign. What is the point of the detailed laws about identifying clean and unclean animals in Deu 14? Even though the Jews were quite idolatrous during Josiah’s reign, there is no evidence in Kings, Chronicles, or the prophets that they had forsaken this particular aspect of the Law. What would be the point in describing the cities of refuge in Deu 18, particularly when some of the cities were outside the territory controlled by Josiah? The rule about taking foreign women captive in battle, or ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’, making a parapet upon your roof, not mixing wool with linen, and not muzzling the ox while it is treading out the grain? These are just samples that I selected while skimming through Deuteronomy that have nothing to do with Josiah’s reforms, but make sense as part of Moses’ final exhortation to the people.

In skimming through Deuteronomy there were an item that struck me as being contrary to the aim’s of Josiah’s reforms: the mention of the exclusion from the assembly of those of the Ammonites or Moabites and their descendants. Introducing these as part of this “pious fraud” strikes me as incredible because they would speak against the founder of the dynastic line to which Josiah belonged: David. This matter is further complicated by an issue that is in fact magnified when the full claims of the DH are considered. While in this study we have particularly been focusing upon the issue of the authorship of the Pentateuch, it is worth realizing that according to the DH the “Deuteronomistic History” was written at the same time as Deuteronomy. This “History” refers to the historical books that begin where Deuteronomy ends and ends essentially with Josiah, and refers to the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings. (Yes I am aware that Kings deals with events past the time of Josiah. The DH posits a second Deuteronomistic writer who wrapped things up for the period from Josiah to the release of Jehoiachin, and that this second writer may have even been the first writer just tying up loose ends a few years after the “first edition” came out only to be followed by Josiah’s sudden death. See ch 7 of Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible” for more information about this second Deuteronomist, but note that this “second edition” talk only concerns the books that follow Deuteronomy, not Deuteronomy itself.)

Back to the main point: this issue of Deu 23:3 effectively speaking against David, I mentioned that this matter is further complicated by an issue that is in fact magnified when the full claims of the DH are considered. I am speaking here of the book of Ruth. My question is, why in the world would the Deuteronomist write a section of law that would effectively speak against David because of the Moabite blood in his veins, and then proceed to write a book whose main point is the faithfulness of a Moabite ancestor of David?? In fact, why write the book of Ruth at all during the period of Josiah’s reign?

But the most fundamental problem with the DH as it relates to Deuteronomy is the commandment to build an altar and assemble at the Mt Ebal/Mt Gerizim/Shechem area, commanded by Moses in Deu 11:26-32; 27:1-14 and fulfilled in Jos 8:30-35. Related to this is the matter concerning “the place where God’s name will dwell”, mentioned repeatedly in Deuteronomy.

According to critical scholars, the key reason for writing Deuteronomy was to provide a justification for the centralization of worship in Jerusalem. So then why in Deuteronomy would we find this key scene being twice described, whereby Shechem would be so honored and Jerusalem would not be mentioned in any way whatsoever? In fact, the only explanation that would even be remotely plausible would be to note that the Deuteronomist had no choice but to mention this because it was a well-known authentic part of national history. But even this explanation defeats the purpose of the book, and even if it were a historical event it would be fully expected to either (a) leave the incident out, or (b) construct it in such a way that the event was intended to foreshadow the different place where God would cause His name to dwell. Including the event and relating it the way that it is recorded is not at all helpful to Josiah’s reforms, it that is in fact the purpose for writing Deuteronomy.

There is no mention of Jerusalem at all in Deuteronomy; not even a hint. (Some would argue that there are maybe a couple of hints. I will not debate the point. My point is that there are no clear hints that would be readily apparent to the people of Josiah’s day.) The later importance of Jerusalem was certainly known to God in Moses’ day, and in Gen 14 (Salem) and Gen 22 (Mt Moriah) there are the first hints about the appropriateness of this later importance. But there is nothing in Deuteronomy, which makes no sense if indeed it was written as a “pious fraud” during Josiah’s reign.

This is also the issue of “the prophet like me” in Deu 18. What purpose does this serve if indeed Deuteronomy were written to bolster the claims of Josiah’s call to reformation? Nobody in Josiah’s reign would fit this, except perhaps Josiah himself. But in the book of Joshua, Joshua very clearly fulfills the initial aspect of this prophecy, thus deadening the claim that it was written so as to get the people to follow Josiah. If Deuteronomy really were the “pious fraud” that the critical scholars claim, then the “prophecy” of the coming prophet should have been left unfilled by the Deuteronomistic Historian, so that Josiah could be claimed to fulfill this prophetic role.

(DB)

Daniel 2 image

It really was an astonishing dream which Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had. No wonder he came out of it with a scream. And it must have a terribly important meaning, something to do with himself, for hadn’t he seen his own face in it?

Well, he had an entire trade union of sorcerers, soothsayers and magicians to be his interpreters in all mysterious matters. They’d tell him what it meant!

But could they? He was pretty sure that more than once they had “conspired to tell (him) misleading and wicked things” (Dan 2:9). So to test them he demanded that they tell him first the details of the dream. Then he’d be prepared to listen to their interpretation of it.

Of course, that stumped them completely. So, “Off with their heads!”

But in the nick of time, there stepped forward a young Hebrew prophet claiming that with the help of his God both the dream and its meaning would be made known.

An image of metal

Sure enough, next day Daniel began to spell out the dream, detail by detail, while Nebuchadnezzar sat there on his throne wide-eyed with astonishment.

What the king had seen was a great metallic image with:

  1. A head of gold.
  2. Chest and arms of silver.
  3. Belly and thighs of bronze.

  4. Legs of iron.
  5. Feet of mixed iron and clay.

What did it stand for? Daniel explained that here was a succession of empires, beginning with the empire of Babylon — of course, for that face had Nebuchadnezzar’s own features.

Its meaning

The identification of these empires is easy to anyone who knows a bit of ancient history. Indeed, other places in the Bible provide simple clues to confirm that the sequence goes like this:

  1. Gold / Babylon
  2. Silver / Persia
  3. Bronze / Greece
  4. Iron / Rome

But why stop there? Since the time of Rome there have been quite a few other empires, most of them every bit as important as these. What about the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan? the T’ang and Ching dynasties? the Aztec and Mayan empires? Philip II’s Spain? Napoleon’s Imperial France? the British Empire? The British Empire of Queen Victoria encompassed fully 25% of the land mass and population of the whole world, considerably more than did any of the four “empires” of Daniel!

An important qualification

There is a simple explanation why these other empires are not part of the prophecy. The vision was not intended to be a prophetic history lesson about all future world empires. These four empires were the powers that would oppress the Jews, Daniel’s people, in their own Land of Israel. This qualification explains what would otherwise be two difficulties:

  1. The third kingdom of bronze is described (Dan 2:39) as “(ruling) over the whole earth”. But the Greek empire of Alexander the Great, big as it was, did not cover all the earth, not even all known civilization. However, the Old Testament word eretz, translated “earth”, also very commonly means “land” — and quite especially the Land of Israel. Alexander incorporated Israel into his growing empire.

  2. Secondly, the empire of Rome is described as “strong as iron — for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others” (Dan 2:40). Yet this “crush-and-break” description seems inappropriate to Rome. For wherever the Romans went, they took the blessings of law and order and settled government, the famous “Pax Romana”. But — once again — these words were grimly true concerning Rome’s relations with that little province of Judea. Unable to tame these turbulent Jews, the frustrated Romans eventually trampled down Jerusalem and leveled the land from end to end. Jews were deported everywhere, and a decree was issued that they must not return to their own land. So Daniel’s prophecy — when taken as relating to Israel — turned out to be marvelously exact in this detail also.

Bible students will readily recognize the importance of Israel, and especially Jerusalem, to God’s purpose. The Old Testament was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, about Hebrews, in the land of the Hebrews, and in the language of the Hebrews. And the New Testament, though spread across the Roman world in Greek, was also written — predominantly — by Hebrews and about Hebrews, and in language rich with allusions to the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

So the image which Daniel saw and interpreted began with Babylon, not because Babylon was the first “world empire”, but because Babylon was the first Gentile power to rule over God’s people in Jerusalem. The Persians were the second, but they did not “conquer” Jerusalem — they inherited it from a distance, simply by defeating the Babylonians. And similarly with the Greeks: their rule of Jerusalem came with the defeat of the Persians at a place quite remote from Jerusalem, in what is now Turkey.

And then there was Rome. Jerusalem passed into the possession of the Romans in their annexation of the Seleucid portion (called ‘the king of the north’ in Dan. 11) of the Grecian empire, in what is now Syria.

In proportion?

If we assume that the components of the image refer to the Gentile kingdoms during the times when they ruled over a Jewish Jerusalem, then a remarkable proportion becomes apparent:

  1. Babylon conquered and trampled down Jerusalem in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c 609 BC.). The time during which Babylon was destined to rule over Jerusalem was scripturally designated, as 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10). The prophet Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, understood by reading Jeremiah’s writings that the period of “70 years” was coming to an end (Dan 9:2).

  2. True to Jeremiah’s prophecy, Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC, ending the Jewish captivity in Babylon. Ezr 1:1 refers to this event as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Some Jews returned to their land, and Persian rule over Jerusalem continued until Alexander crushed the Persian army at Issus, and moved southward through Jerusalem in 332.

  3. After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, control of Jerusalem alternated between the Seleucids of Syria (the “king of the north”) and the Ptolemies of Egypt (the “king of the south”) for another 160 years. Eventually, a revolt broke out among the Jews because the Grecian “king of the north”, Antiochus Epiphanes, deliberately desecrated the Jewish temple in 167 AD. In 161 AD the Jewish leaders, the Maccabees, sought a Roman alliance for protection.

Thus, the first three portions of the image endured, respectively, 70 (the head), 206 (chest and arms), and 170 years (belly and thighs) — give or take a couple of years! This is just about perfectly proportional to the human form.

Now comes the hard part! We can assign the Roman portion of the image a starting point of 161 BC, but where does it end? Some historians consider that the Roman Empire endured until 565 AD — a total period of 726 years. But such a period for the fourth portion of the image (the legs, from knees to feet) would yield, in proportion, legs almost twice as long as all the rest of the body: something like a circus clown on ridiculously long stilts!.

But consider the alternative, as suggested earlier: that the Roman empire should be of consequence only when it was ruling over God’s people in Jerusalem. This would yield a period of 230 years (161 BC through 70 AD — when Jerusalem was trodden down by the Romans, and the Jews were scattered); such a shorter period would restore the whole image to proper perspective .

The “gap” in the image

Finally, what about the toes of iron and clay? If we remain true to our assumption (ie, that the “kingdoms” enumerated in Daniel 2 are those that bore or will bear rule over Jews in Jerusalem), then — after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD — there can/could be no fifth and final part of the image until there are/were Jews back in the Land again. And so we are compelled, by this assumption, to allow for a sizable “gap” between the first four parts of the image and the last and most crucial part, the feet and toes.

Such a gap certainly appears to work against the congruity of the image in its time perspective, and might be construed as a point against this view. However, it must be admitted that a similar “gap”, of almost 2,000 years, is by far the most reasonable interpretation of the Olivet prophecy (Mat 24; Mar 13; Luk 21), which clearly contains elements already fulfilled in 70 AD and elements yet to be fulfilled in the Last Days. And, likewise, the Book of Revelation (with its oft-repeated ‘I come quickly… shortly… or soon’, but also with prophecies plainly about the Last Days) is most easily reconciled by a “gap”, or “deferment”, hypothesis.

[The “deferment” theory — put simply — differs from the “gap” theory in this: The “deferment” theory is of an initial but partial fulfillment of the whole of a prophecy, to be followed by a final and complete fulfillment of the whole — thus involving some repetition. (For more information, see WRev 259-273.)]

And, in each case, the gap (or deferment) in prophetic fulfillment is for the same reason: During that period, the Jews were not in their Land or in possession of Jerusalem. It is not stretching the point too far to say that the Divine “clock” seems to stop when the conditions in the Middle East are not immediately favorable to the fulfillment of God’s purpose.

Who are the toes?

These “toes” must refer to ten powers, some strong, some weak, who oppress the Jews when they are finally back in the Land of Israel, and who subdue Jerusalem once again. Daniel provides the clue for their identification: “Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed [ereb] with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed [ereb] with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture [ereb] and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes [ereb] with clay” (Dan 2:41-43).

The “mixed”, or “ereb”, peoples are of course the Arabs of the Middle East (cp also the same Hebrew word in 1Ki 10:15; Jer 25:20,24; 50:37; Eze 30:5; Neh 13:1,3). These are peoples of mixed ancestry, descended variously from Ishmael, Esau, Lot, the Philistines, and others. They have never “remained united”, always quarrelling and falling out among themselves… except in one particular: they are almost always solidly united in their hatred of Israel!

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, fully authenticated so far, suggests an Arab conquest of Israel in the not too distant future. This is exactly in line with what is evident in many other Bible prophecies.

However, just as the toes take up only a small amount of space in the human figure, so also it may be expected that the Arab domination will last for only a very short while. And the Bible gives us that time period also: 3 1/2 years… 42 months… 1,260 days (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7,11,12; Rev 11:2,3; 12:6; 13:5). Such a period — if taken literally — would preserve the perfect proportion of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

Roman, or European, “toes”?

There is, of course, another and very different view of things held by some prophecy students, as follows: The feet and toes of Daniel’s image, being extensions of the legs, have often been equated with the “divided Roman empire” that followed the decline and fall of Rome herself in the sixth century AD. It is suggested that this “divided” state of Europe corresponds to the feet and toes of the image, the last part of the image.

Beginning in the late 1950s, it was for some time popular to interpret the “ten toes” as the European Economic Community. The nations of the EEC were, according to this view, the last vestige of the old Roman Empire, and would be the final part of the Kingdom of Men. (It is generally forgotten that there are about 50 nations in existence today, many of them not even in Europe — including most of the Arab nations — that occupy territory formerly held by the old Roman Empire. So any of these other nations could also be considered “successor nations” to Rome.)

But, as the member nations in the EEC climbed to 12 and then 14, and with more almost certain to be admitted as of this date, this interpretation has fallen on hard times.

There is another problem with the “European toe” interpretation. If all the divided states of Europe, from approximately 565 AD to the present and beyond, are represented by the feet and toes of the image, then our image is grossly out of proportion. Not only does the image look like a man on ridiculously tall stilts, but he is standing on “feet” with seven or eight toes each, which are now more than half again as long as the rest of the body, including the greatly elongated legs!. The absurdity of this figure is a good reason for rejecting the interpretation which suggested it.

Sudden destruction

In the vision a stone cut out of a mountain without human hands (ie, a divinely-appointed “stone”!) comes flying through the air and crashes into the feet of the image, completely pulverizing them; the image crashes to the ground, and every bit of it is similarly ground to powder; then a mighty wind blows the whole out of sight, while the stone grows and grows until it becomes a mighty mountain filling all the earth (Dan 2:34,35,44,45).

The “stone” is clearly Jesus: the Son of God is the precious stone, the stone which the builders rejected, the stone of stumbling, but also the stone which God will make the chief cornerstone in His eternal temple (Psa 118:22; Isa 8:14,15; 28:16; Mat 21:44; Mar 12:10,11; Luk 20:17; 1Pe 2:4-8).

A different kingdom

This “great mountain” which grows from a little stone will be a Kingdom set up by God Himself, which will last forever (Dan 2:44). When the Arab “toes” overrun Israel and trample down Jerusalem once again (as did the Babylonians and the Romans before them), then they will themselves be smashed swiftly by the coming of Christ in power and glory.

Where will this kingdom begin?

Hoping not to belabor an obvious point, we must nevertheless ask the question: Where will this eternal Kingdom begin? All Scriptures point to Jerusalem (Psa 2:6; Isa 2:2-4; 24:23; Jer 3:17; Mic 4:1,2; Joel 2:32; Oba 1:17; Zec 14:1-4; etc, etc).

So, working backward, if Jerusalem is where the Kingdom of God will begin (ie, where the “little stone” will begin to grow into a “great mountain”), then Jerusalem must also be the place upon which that stone falls in the first place.

And if this is so, then where will the feet of the image be standing when they are struck by that little stone? Jerusalem again. Jerusalem, the center of Bible prophecy — not Rome or Europe!

Daniel, overview

Author: Daniel

Time: 605 – 535 BC

Summary: The book of Daniel predicts the destiny of two opposing powers: The Kingdom of Men and the Kingdom of God, stressing that “the Most High rules in the Kingdom of Men”. Daniel’s prophecies generally deal with the nations that control Israel, from Daniel’s day until the return of Christ.

Key verse: “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure for ever” (Dan 2:44).

Outline

1. Prologue: the setting: Dan 1
a) Daniel and his friends taken captive: Dan 1:1-7
b) The young men are faithful: Dan 1:8-16
c) The young men are elevated to high positions: Dan 1:17-21
2. The destinies of the nations that rule Israel: Dan 2-7
a) Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a large statue: Dan 2
b) Nebuchadnezzar’s gold image: Dan 3
c) Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an enormous tree: Dan 4
d) Belshazzar’s and Babylon’s downfall: Dan 5
e) Daniel’s deliverance: Dan 6
f) Daniel’s dream of four beasts: Dan 7
3. The destiny of the nation of Israel: Dan 8-12
a) Daniel’s vision of a ram and a goat: Dan 8
b) Daniel’s prayer and his vision of the 70 “sevens”: Dan 9
c) Daniel’s vision of a man: Dan 10:1-11:1
d) Daniel’s vision of the kings of the south and the north: Dan 11:2-45
e) The end times: Dan 12

Background

In 605 BC Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon’s victory, Egypt’s vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 BC. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon including Daniel, whose name means “God is my judge” or “God is judging” or “God will judge” (Dan 1:1-3), plus some of the vessels from Solomon’s temple (2Ch 36:7). This was the first of Judah’s three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:1-4).

Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 BC. Jehoiachin reigned only three months and 10 days (2Ch 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 BC, he took Jehoiachin to Babylon along with most of Judah’s remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2Ki 24:10-17; 2Ch 36:10).

A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 BC. Jehoiakim’s younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah’s puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon’s sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer 37; 38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king’s eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2Ki 24:18 — 25:24).

Scope

Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 BC. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of Dan 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 BC (Dan 1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 BC (Dan 10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.

Writer

There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 BC or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel’s life. What makes Daniel’s authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.

Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (Dan 8:1; 9:2,20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf Exo 20:2,7).

Language

Daniel is written in two languages, not just one. The Book is written in Hebrew and in Aramaic:

  • Dan 1:1 through 2:4a: Hebrew language

  • Dan 2:4b through 7:28: Aramaic language

  • Dan 8:1 through 12:13: Hebrew language

There are a number of theories why two languages were used. One reason may be that the Spirit of God was indicating that the message of this book was for both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, the Hebrew portions would get the attention of the Jews, while the Aramaic portion would have the attention of the Gentiles.