|
Daniel finds himself in Babylon, working for the king. Even though he
finds himself in a high office, he never really loses sight of the King
he really serves.
Several years earlier, King Nebuchadnezzar had attempted to quieten
the hecklers in Jerusalem, and finally subdues by annihilation. As per
Jeremiah's prophecy, Jerusalem would lie in ruins for 70 years, and as
God had spoken through Moses, that is one year for every missed sabbath
year (2 Chronicles 36:21; Jer 25:9-12,27:6-8,29:10; Lev 26:34-43,25:4-5).
This is the period of time into which the Book of Daniel falls.
In the latter part of the Book, Daniel commemorates the destruction
of the Jerusalem. As we may recall from our Bible Overview, Ezra was
sent out to rebuild the City around the 70th year; sent out in the first
year of Cyrus the Persian king (Ezra 1:1) In Ezra 7:1 it makes mention
of King Artaxerxes. Later in the book of Nehemiah, it too mentions the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh 2:1). Ezra and Daniel are
contemporary; Nehemiah follows chronologically the events and visions
of Daniel.
The first half of the Book of Daniel is significantly historical.
We learn about the man, the context he finds himself in and something of
how the Babylonian kingdom conducted itself, even finally to its demise
at the hands of the Medes and the Persians.
In the second half of the book the focus becomes visionary, apocalyptic,
something that it has in common with Revelation -- it speaks to
the same themes at certain points.
Unlike Revelation, however, Daniel is not the last book in a series.
Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were thought to have been
written after Daniel, and before the 400 years of silence.
Certainly, the book is not an easy read. In some spots, its meaning
is abundantly clear, yet in others we will probably not get far
into probing its possible meaning.
Like Revelation, this book speaks to the spiritual battle that is fought
in the heavens. It speaks of kingship, and kingdoms, the rise and fall
of many, and hints at an ultimate conclusion.
Daniel is prophetic. It often refers to the demise of the Babylonians,
as well as that of the Medes and the Persians and finally that of the
Greeks. Near the end, the iron kingdom arrives only to be smashed by
the Kingdom of the Rock. The accuracy with which Daniel portrays the
conquests of Alexandar the Great has raised some questions among those
who do not accept the supernatural implications.
A number of facts establish the authenticity of the book. Daniel, appears
in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament completed
in around 285BC. Also in an incident, according to the Jewish Historian
Josephus, when Alexandar the Great invaded Jerusalem, the high priest
showed him a copy of Daniel. According to the incident as recorded
in Antiquities, Alexandar was impressed and the Temple was spared.
This incident occurred approximately 332BC.
ref: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, Chapter 8
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm
This evidence precedes many of the fulfilled prophecies, and weighs
significantly in favour of the genuineness of Daniel's authorship. For these
and other reasons, has the church for 20 centuries accepted it.
Sir Isaac Newton noted that "to reject Daniel, is to reject the Christian
religion." Jesus himself refers to the man Daniel as "the prophet".
Also, in Hebrews 11:33, the author of that book makes reference to the
incident of Daniel in the lions' den.
Yet in spite of all this, there have at times been skeptics who have
challenged the authenticity of Daniel -- people for whom foretelling
of the future with such vividness and clarity seems impossible.
They maintain that such is only feasible in hindsight. For the critics,
the only possible explanation was to have the book written at the time
of the Maccabees (ca 170BC). That would require some gymnastics around
facts of previous history, nevertheless, it is a position that some hold
to.
Much of what the Bible has to say must be understood with the premise
of the supernatural at the forefront. There is very little that one can
accept from this collection of books, if the Holy Spirit does not enable
the understanding. Faith itself becomes impossible, if you reject the
first premise.
|
