AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL (PART II)

Theological Bites

The theology of, or in the book of Daniel is highly contested in Christian and religious circles. The two books stand out to be the most referred to by prophecy teachers in most religious circles. The teachings based on how the books have been interpreted have led to many followers selling their properties in preparation for the second coming; Others have distanced themselves from the modern world and stormed mountains to dwell in there. Many have looked at modern political governments as evil and Christians have been advised not to participate in leadership at whatever level. These books have determined ministries and industries of publication.

Approaches to interpretation

I cannot say enough about these two books and how they have been perceived, but for now, let us focus on the book of Daniel. Due to the contention on how we should interpret the book, scholars have devised four approaches not just to interpret the book of Daniel but also that of the book of Revelation that is equally contentious. Each school of thought interprets the events and text in the book of Daniel (or Revelation) to mean a particular thing at a particular time. These four schools of interpretation are:

• Futurist (Occurs in the future)
• Historicist (Progressively fulfilled throughout church history)
• Preterist (The events have passed already)
• Idealist (Symbolic fight between good/evil)

I am using the book of Revelation in the introduction of the book of Daniel because I am aware many serious Bible readers have been nurtured to believe that these books have the same message. In fact, to some, the book of Revelation completes the message in the book of Daniel. All this is due to the way Bible teachers interpret the two books. Secondly, I am approaching the book of Daniel from this angle because, by the time I present the theology of the book, I wish the reader understands me in a broader context. So those are the schools of interpretation. Sometime back I landed on an anonymous author on (http://revelationrevisited.org) who actually presented to me, one of the best summaries of these schools. Allow me to share part of what he presented:

Strengths & Weaknesses

We have just briefly looked at four main ways that the prophecies of Revelation are interpreted. Each of these positions has been rigorously studied, endlessly expanded and vigorously attacked.  Each of these positions is the only correct view according to its adherents, and each is the mark of deliberate heresy according to its detractors. It is not our role to try to tear down any of these views.  In fact, we can see that each of these views was developed and fostered by serious students of scripture, each trying his best to bring meaning out of the riddles of Revelation.  Each person brought his own background and experiences to this study, and each was convinced of the legitimacy of the conclusions they produced.

To be fair, each of these viewpoints has its strong points.

The Preterist is correct in stating that the early Christians thought that all of Matthew 24, all of Luke 21, and all of Revelation were to be fulfilled in their time.  Even Peter and Paul had this expectation and wrote of it.  Jesus obviously intended for them to understand the prophecies that pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem in their lifetimes.

The Historicist looks at the same passages and sees the sovereign control of God over the affairs of men and nations.  And God is indeed sovereign.

The Idealist sees spiritual lessons and encouragement in the language of Revelation. Those lessons are surely there, and we are made poorer if we refuse to see them.

The Futurist sees the final drama of man’s days as God brings sin and sinners to an end.  And most of us cannot doubt that Revelation is intended to illuminate the path ahead of us.

But each of these viewpoints leaves unanswered questions

I would ask the Preterist, “Isn’t it possible that God has designed these prophecies to point to more than one event? Is it conceivable that God used the destruction of Jerusalem as a template to talk about the far greater destruction that awaits the entire planet?”

I would ask the Historicist, “Why has the Historicist method never produced a sure consensus as to the meanings of specific elements of prophecy? Why are we unsure about so many elements of the ‘sure word’ of prophecy?’’

I would ask the Idealist, “How are we to know when a prophecy is fulfilled if it points to nothing at all?”

I would ask the Futurist, “How can you build a future model based on suppositions about the nation Israel when the New Testament describes the Christian Church as Israel? How can you give God’s people a “rapture pass” when Revelation shows God’s people enduring the trials of the tribulation?”

Deeper Concerns

On a different level than the practical questions listed above, I have four deeper concerns about these “schools” of thought.

• I am concerned that these viewpoints are not just viewpoints. A “viewpoint” implies a way of looking at something with the understanding that you can also look at it from other viewpoints. A person can easily move to various points on the rim of the Grand Canyon in order to broaden his view of the canyon.  This is not so with these interpretive schools of teaching.  Instead of viewpoints, they produce paradigms–mental filters through which all subsequent study is processed. The more a person studies from any of these perspectives, the more locked-in he is to ‘seeing’ things in only that way.
• I am concerned that these prophetic positions have given Christians yet another way to differentiate themselves from other Christians. Each group–convinced of their understanding of God’s Word–has felt free to ridicule the other, and in some cases even denounce the others as heretics and fools.  The Book of Daniel and Revelation has become a club freely wielded to crush those who disagree about its meaning.
• I am concerned that each group sees itself as understanding the totality of God’s truth. A story is told in which Satan is taking a walk with one of his cohorts. They watch as the person ahead of them on the path stops to pick up something shiny and bright. The friend asks the devil, “Aren’t you worried?  That man just discovered a piece of the Truth?”  Satan replied, “No, I’ll just get him to think that he discovered the whole Truth.” While we may laugh at such a story, this is exactly the position in which we place ourselves when we think that we understand everything and fail to consider that God may have something more to teach us.
• Most of all, I am concerned that each of these four schools of thought teaches that much of Daniel and Revelation does not apply directly to today’s Christian.  The Preterist and the Historicist each teaches that much (or even all) of the book was fulfilled in centuries past–it’s merely history to us.  The Idealist says that the prophecies can mean anything at all–and can be ignored insofar as speaking to upcoming events.  The Futurist says that most of the book is yet ahead of us but that the Christian need not worry about it because he won’t be here.  These events will happen to someone else. While their teachings differ, each of the major interpretive systems minimizes the importance of this book to today’s Christian.

I began from this note to pose a challenge to your preconceived ideas about the book of Daniel then prepare you for a fresh world view.

Next, we are to look deeper into the message of the Book, not as an isolated book but its particular revelation of and about the same God since Genesis.

God bless you, I invoke TRUTH, WISDOM, and FAITH (2Tim 2:7) 

Priest M.I.T WHITE (+256-775-822833 for further inquiries)

iTiS Well of Worship Fellowship (John 4:24)

ASK & BECOME