PDA

View Full Version : Daniel 7:14



Obsidian
09-19-2014, 04:51 PM
Daniel 7
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Can a plausible argument be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around?

Obsidian
09-23-2014, 01:24 PM
Does no one know the answer?

John Reece
09-23-2014, 07:34 PM
Does no one know the answer?

It is so improbable, I wonder why you ask.

Obsidian
09-23-2014, 07:50 PM
Why is it improbable?

John Reece
09-23-2014, 08:02 PM
Why is it improbable?

That's why I did not answer before now; I did not care to become involved in a debate about something quite obvious that you do not see.

It is too late at night for me to pursue this now; I simply do not have the energy.

John Reece
09-24-2014, 08:03 AM
Daniel 7
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Can a plausible argument be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around?

If you think it is conceivable that a plausible argument can be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around, why not say why you think that? or, say why and/or how such a notion has entered your mind? or, tell us what you see in the text, the context, and/or the rest of the Bible that indicates the possibility of a plausible argument that can be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around.

robrecht
09-24-2014, 10:17 AM
There are textual variants in the old Greek versions that witness to the controversial nature of this passage in early Christian and rabbinic exegesis. Some see two or only one anthropomorphic representation(s) of God and even the Ancient of Days was sometimes seen as an angelic figure, eg, the heavenly prince of the third heaven. A good commentary can elucidate some of the various text critical options and interpretations. I'm told that John J. Collins' Hermeneia commentary is especially good.

Geert van den Bos
09-24-2014, 10:46 AM
Daniel 7
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Can a plausible argument be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around?

God's Kingdom only was established through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

John Reece
09-24-2014, 12:05 PM
There are textual variants in the old Greek versions that witness to the controversial nature of this passage in early Christian and rabbinic exegesis. Some see two or only one anthropomorphic representation(s) of God and even the Ancient of Days was sometimes seen as an angelic figure, eg, the heavenly prince of the third heaven. A good commentary can elucidate some of the various text critical options and interpretations. I'm told that John J. Collins' Hermeneia commentary is especially good.

With reference to the question posed in the OP, I have read all the various text critical options and interpretations in four different exegetical commentaries: John J. Collins' Hermeneia; James A. Montgomery's International Critical Commentary, Hartman and Di Lella's Anchor Yale Bible, and John E. Goldengay's Word Biblical Commentary ― all the while specifically searching for an exegetical basis for "a plausible argument that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around". I could not find any exegetical basis for such an argument in any of the four commentaries listed above.

How about you, robrecht? Do you find any of the text critical options and interpretations to provide an exegetical basis for "a plausible argument that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around"?

robrecht
09-24-2014, 12:30 PM
With reference to the question posed in the OP, I have read all the various text critical options and interpretations in four different exegetical commentaries: John J. Collins' Hermeneia; James A. Montgomery's International Critical Commentary, Hartman and Di Lella's Anchor Yale Bible, and John E. Goldengay's Word Biblical Commentary ― all the while specifically searching for an exegetical basis for "a plausible argument that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around". I could not find any exegetical basis for such an argument in any of the four commentaries listed above.

How about you, robrecht? Do you find any of the text critical options and interpretations to provide an exegetical basis for "a plausible argument that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around"?
Plausible? No way. But I am very impressed with the number of commentaries you have!

Obsidian
09-24-2014, 10:41 PM
I underlined the ambiguous pronoun in my opening post. The clearest referent to "him" seems to be the Ancient of Days. The Ancient of Days means God. So if we assume that it refers to the closest other person, it means that God is getting the kingdom from the son of man.

Also, the above verse (14) refers to the kingdom as being everlasting, and says that everyone shall serve "him." And a later verse (27) says that the "Most High" is the one who will be served, and who has the everlasting kingdom.

Daniel 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Although it doesn't strictly have to be so, I would tend to assume that "Most High" refers to God rather than the son of man.

And then, finally, there is this verse:

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

But the reason I posted here was because I was mainly interested in the grammar involved — not just the common opinions of theologians.

robrecht
09-25-2014, 03:24 AM
Who gave dominion to the leopard in 7,6? Who killed the beast in 7,11? Who took away dominion from the other beasts in 7,12? How do you understand the role of the Ancient of Days in 7,22? Who gives the kingdoms and dominion in 7,27? Any plausible interpretation of the pronouns in 7,14 should make sense in context.

John Reece
09-25-2014, 07:11 AM
What robrecht said re Daniel.


And then, finally, there is this verse:

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

I thought you would have had 1 Corinthian 15:24 in mind per your OP.

During the days of his incarnation, Jesus alluded to Daniel 13 with reference to himself in Matt. 24:30, wherein he referred to himself as "the Son of Man in heaven" (France's translation); He was very clearly and explicitly subject to the Father throughout his incarnation. He was exalted from the status of a human being ― בַר אֱנָשׁ (bar ʾᵉnāš), "son of man" ― in Dan. 7:13; and in 7:14 this בַר אֱנָשׁ (bar ʾᵉnāš) "son of man" was given authority, glory, sovereign power, and everlasting dominion. (Jesus) Christ had to have received such at his enthronement ― circa AD30 ― (Dan 7:13-14) before he could hand it back to God the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:24.


But the reason I posted here was because I was mainly interested in the grammar involved — not just the common opinions of theologians.

The grammar involved is in harmony with the contextual meaning.

Obsidian
09-25-2014, 12:41 PM
The grammar involved is in harmony with the contextual meaning.

Thanks for the non-answer.


"son of man" was given authority, glory, sovereign power, and everlasting dominion. (Jesus) Christ had to have received such at his enthronement ― circa AD30 ― (Dan 7:13-14) before he could hand it back to God the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:24.

That doesn't mean that Daniel 7 is referring to the same event as Matthew 24. Matthew 24 does not even refer to AD 30.


He was exalted from the status of a human being ― בַר אֱנָשׁ (bar ʾᵉnāš), "son of man" ― in Dan. 7:13

It doesn't actually say that. In English, the grammar is ambiguous about who is being exalted.


(Jesus) Christ had to have received such at his enthronement ― circa AD30 ― (Dan 7:13-14) before he could hand it back to God the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:24.

All peoples didn't worship Jesus in AD 30.


Who gave dominion to the leopard in 7,6?

It doesn't say. Could just as easily be Satan. Could be someone else. I don't think it even matters.


Who killed the beast in 7,11? Who took away dominion from the other beasts in 7,12? . . . Who gives the kingdoms and dominion in 7,27?

Could be Jesus


How do you understand the role of the Ancient of Days in 7,22?

It seems to indicate that God is either doing all the fighting himself, or else is helping Jesus fight. I would imagine it's the latter.

robrecht
09-25-2014, 12:46 PM
You may find that plausible, but have you found any scholars that do?

Obsidian
09-25-2014, 12:56 PM
I consider that a stupid question. I don't determine by theology by majority vote.

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

robrecht
09-25-2014, 01:05 PM
I consider that a stupid question. I don't determine by theology by majority vote.

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I am somewhat stupid from time to time, but I do value the time that many have invested in the study of the scriptures. Please note that nowhere did I advocate a majority vote. That would be really stupid, as the great majority of people do not even know how to read the languages in which the book of Daniel is written.

John Reece
09-25-2014, 01:16 PM
That doesn't mean that Daniel 7 is referring to the same event as Matthew 24. Matthew 24 does not even refer to AD 30.

Matthew 24:30 alludes to the enthronement of the Son of Man, which happened circa AD 30.


All peoples didn't worship Jesus in AD 30.

No one has said or implied that they did.

I knew this would come up, which is why I did not address it in my last post.

The enthronement of the Son of Man marked the inauguration of Jesus Christ's reign.


Psa. 110:1 The LORD says to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”

The making of his enemies a footstool for his feet is a work in progress that will ultimately eventuate in the fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:24


1Cor. 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [a present reality now in progress ― one that began circa AD 30] 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him [when the Son of Man was enthroned circa AD 30 as a fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14], so that God may be all in all.

Obsidian
09-26-2014, 06:15 PM
But I think if you are willing to acknowledge that Daniel 7:14 was not completely fulfilled in AD 30, you may as well acknowledge that it could instead be referring to the entire era. And if it is not entirely fulfilled until the future, it may as well be referring to the enthronement of God rather than the son of man.

If this passage doesn't line up with 1 Corinthians 15:24, then is there no Old Testament passage that does?

And most importantly -- the actual reason I started the thread -- is there anything about the actual grammar that points toward one antecedent or the other?

robrecht
09-26-2014, 09:35 PM
It doesn't say. Could just as easily be Satan. Could be someone else. I don't think it even matters.

Could be Jesus

It seems to indicate that God is either doing all the fighting himself, or else is helping Jesus fight. I would imagine it's the latter.You are reading into the text characters (Satan, Jesus) that were not actually mentioned in the text. First try to understand the text as the original author himself most likelly intended it to be understood. In the Jewish cultural context, who is the most likely subject of the actions I asked you about?

You think Satan might have been the person that gave dominion to the leopard in 7,6. Is Satan even mentioned anywhere in the book of Daniel? No. You do not think this matters, but of course it matters. If 'Daniel' intended us to understand Satan as the person acting in this verse, why would he not even mention Satan anywhere in the whole book?

You think Jesus took is the one acting in 7,11 7,12 and 7,27, but, of course, Daniel never mentions Jesus anywhere in the whole book. The one like a son of man is not present on the scene yet in 7,11 and 7,12. The Ancient of Days is the one acting in 7,22, but you again prefer to say that Jesus is acting there also. Within the historical context of the author, God is the typical subject of all of these activities.

Do you see how you are reading things into the text rather than reading the text itself in its own context? And, again, have you found any scholars that consider your 'reading of the text' plausible?

Obsidian
09-26-2014, 10:14 PM
It doesn't say who gave the animals their power because that question does not matter. Further, you are wrong that Jesus is unmentioned in the book. And you are wrong that Satan is unmentioned in the book.

Further, another book makes it fairly clear that Satan was involved:

Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

robrecht
09-26-2014, 10:29 PM
It doesn't say who gave the animals their power because that question does not matter. Further, you are wrong that Jesus is unmentioned in the book. And you are wrong that Satan is unmentioned in the book.

Further, another book makes it fairly clear that Satan was involved:

Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Why do you keep avoiding my question? Have you found any scholars that consider your 'reading of the text' plausible?

Obsidian
09-27-2014, 12:53 AM
Because I already said your question is idiotic

robrecht
09-27-2014, 05:13 AM
Because I already said your question is idioticBut you completely misunderstood my question. You seemed to think that I was suggesting that you should determine your theology by a majority vote. What I asked was if you were able to find any scholars who found your view plausible.

John Reece
09-27-2014, 08:50 AM
If this passage doesn't line up with 1 Corinthians 15:24, then is there no Old Testament passage that does?

And most importantly -- the actual reason I started the thread -- is there anything about the actual grammar that points toward one antecedent or the other?

The last question first: If there were any significant grammatical ambiguity in the text of Daniel 7:13-14, one or more the five exegetical commentaries ― the four I have already mentioned + C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament ― I have consulted would have noted it. I can post three of the commentaries via Accordance later so you can see for yourself.

As for an Old Testament passage that lines up with 1 Corinthians 15:24, Daniel 2:44 is cited at 1 Cor 15:24 in the margin of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT:


And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever;


But I think if you are willing to acknowledge that Daniel 7:14 was not completely fulfilled in AD 30, you may as well acknowledge that it could instead be referring to the entire era. And if it is not entirely fulfilled until the future, it may as well be referring to the enthronement of God rather than the son of man.

I am willing to acknowledge that the interpretations you have suggested in your first sentence are not only possible but are also more in accord with popular exegesis than mine is ― I say "mine", but it is really that of R. T. France in his NICNT commentary on Matthew, and his NIGTC commentary on Mark. However, I know of no commentary or translation that is in accord with the conclusion you suggest in your second sentence, for which you are searching in vain for some exegetical basis.

Obsidian
09-27-2014, 12:29 PM
If there were any significant grammatical ambiguity in the text of Daniel 7:13-14, one or more the five exegetical commentaries ― the four I have already mentioned + C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament ― I have consulted would have noted it.

Not necessarily. Anyway, don't you and other people here know Hebrew? I don't really care about commentaries. I just want the text analyzed. In English the antecedent is ambiguous.


And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever

It seems to me like Daniel 2:44 is referring to the reign of Jesus, not the part where Jesus gives up the kingdom to God.

John Reece
09-27-2014, 02:09 PM
Not necessarily. Anyway, don't you and other people here know Hebrew?

The text is not Hebrew; it is Aramaic.


I don't really care about commentaries. I just want the text analyzed.

Which is what exegetical commentaries do.

If I were to give you a grammatical analysis without substantiating it by means of reference to some authority, would you take my word for it?


In English the antecedent is ambiguous.


Dan. 7:13 As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
that shall never be destroyed.

If there really were an ambiguity in the text, some scholar ― among the dozens who have been cited in both ancient and modern times ― would have noted such to be the case. If you were to read the comments, quotes, and references in the five exegetical commentaries I have referred to, you would know that practically every imaginable plausible view with regard every aspect of the text of Daniel 7:13-14 has been proposed by some scholar.

I challenge you to find a single scholar or a single translation that supports your thesis that the Ancient One was given authority by the Man (or "humanlike figure" ― see below) who was led into the presence of the Ancient One.

From Word Biblical Commentary, Daniel, by John E. Goldingay (page 168):


The humanlike figure comes in order to be invested as king (v 14). The sovereignty he is given is like God’s own (cf. 3:33 [4:3]; 6:27 [26]), the rule the first symbolic dream spoke of (2:44–45). He is given the power Nebuchadnezzar once exercised (2:37; 5:19; cf. 6:26 [25]). In serving him, people indirectly serve God, like the foreigners pictured as serving Israel in Isa 60:7, 10; 61:6 (Feuillet, Etudes, 454).
.....He is, then, a symbol for some entity given authority by God.


It seems to me like Daniel 2:44 is referring to the reign of Jesus, not the part where Jesus gives up the kingdom to God.

I cited Daniel 2:44 only in response to your request for an O.T. text that relates to 1 Corinthians 15:24; according to the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, Dan 2:44 does so; make what you will of the fact.

robrecht
09-27-2014, 02:18 PM
Not necessarily. Anyway, don't you and other people here know Hebrew? I don't really care about commentaries. I just want the text analyzed. In English the antecedent is ambiguous.Oh, so you are trying to nicely ask someone to do you a favor by parsing each word of this text. Well, why didn't you say so? I had the distinct impression you were trying to insult people. Might want to work on your people skills a little bit. I could certainly do t
that for you, I would be happy to, but you should ask nicely first. Maybe even apologize for misrepresenting my question to you and then calling it idiotic. You see that kind of rude behavior does not incline people to help you. But I will make a gesture of good faith and help you out a little bit just to give you the opportunity to express a little thankfulness when someone helps you. This text is not Hebrew but Aramaic. Now if you want me to help you more, you know what to do.

Obsidian
09-27-2014, 03:11 PM
I've been asking for the opinions of actual linguists since this thread started. If you can give me one, I would appreciate it. But it seems that all anyone wants to talk about is the opinions of theologians.

John Reece
09-27-2014, 03:43 PM
I've been asking for the opinions of actual linguists since this thread started. If you can give me one, I would appreciate it. But it seems that all anyone wants to talk about is the opinions of theologians.

Not so. No theologian per se has been referred to in this thread. Rather, only exegetical scholars have been referred to or quoted herein: i.e., scholars who comment on the linguistic aspects of biblical texts.

John Reece
09-27-2014, 05:31 PM
From The International Critical Commentary, Daniel, by James A. Montgomery (pages 303-304):


.... The seer beholds, wafted in the upper atmosphere with a nimbus of a cloud, a human figure coming (AV ignores the climax of the syntax of the original); he comes to (literally, 'arrives at') the Ancient, he is presented before him, as is the custom in royal courts, and to him is then given universal and everlasting dominion.

....

The passive 'he was presented' (JV 'he was brought near') is the proper rendering of the Aramaic idiom of the act. pl.; cf. verse 5 and Note at 2:12. The idea is of a royal audience; cf. the identical קרבתיך קרם סנחאריב, 'I presented thee before Sennacherib,' .... Also וַיַּצִּנַם לפני פריה, English versions 'presented them,' Gen. 47:2. There follows in verse 14 the description of the viceregal investiture of the humanlike being. The the attribution of dominion and glory and sovereignty, cf. the similar terms used of Nebuchadnezzar's imperial power, 4:33, 6:18. The verse depends with its expression of an incorruptible kingdom upon 2:44. ....

John Reece
09-27-2014, 06:32 PM
Excerpts from Hermeneia, Daniel, by John J. Collins (pages 304-311, selectively):


13. Excursus: "One like a human being" one like a human being: Scarcely any passage in the Hebrew Bible has engendered as much controversy as this phrase. .... The philological meaning. There is nearly universal consensus that the phrase means simply 'one like a human being.' The corresponding Hebrew phrases בן אנושׁ (Ps 144:3) or, more commonly בן אדם are found only in poetic or solemn diction in the Hebrew Bible. It is often used in parallelism with a generic word for humanity, for example, in Job 25:6 "how much less man (אנושׁ) a maggot/the son of man (בן אדם) a worm." .... The preposition כ , "like" is best understood as indicating the mode of perception proper to a vision, so that "like a son of man" means "a human figure seen in a vision," where the figure may or may not represent something other than a human being.

....

13. with the clouds of heaven : .... The preposition עם "with" is variously rendered in the versions. Montgomery sees here a theological nuance, arguing that a deity would come on the clouds, but there is no basis for the distinction. The text does not indicate whether the figure is ascending or descending or moving horizontally.

The entourage of clouds gives rise to the epithet ענני, applied to the messiah in rabbinic tradition. The clouds were identified as angels by Pseudo-Saadia.

he approached the Ancient of Days: The Old Greek reading, "he came as an Ancient of Days," is probably to be explained as a mechanical error (reading ὡς for ἕως, followed by a grammatical hypercorrection). Nonetheless, it acquired theological importance, as can be seen in the fusion of the two figures in Rev 1:13-14, and it is of interest in view of the later controversy about two powers in heaven.

14. to him was given dominion: The language of this verse echoes earlier verses in Daniel 1-6. The sovereignty, glory, and dominion recall the kingdom given to Nebuchadnezzar in 2:37; 5:18. The peoples, nations, and languages constitute a cliché, found already in 3:4, among others. The indestructibility of the kingdom recalls that of 2:44 but more particularly the sovereignty attributed to God in 3:33; 6:27. The first, Babylonian kingdom provides the main standard of glory, which the eschatological kingdom will surpass. These echoes of the terminology of the earlier chapters provide continuity between chapter 7 and the older parts of the book.

robrecht
09-28-2014, 08:32 AM
I've been asking for the opinions of actual linguists since this thread started. If you can give me one, I would appreciate it. But it seems that all anyone wants to talk about is the opinions of theologians.Actually, you are attempting a primairly theological interpretation, in addition to minimizing the work of scholars who attempt first to understand the text from a liguistic perspective, and in addition to misrepresenting my question to you and being insulting, which you still have not taken responsibility for. Your OP asked if anyone could make a plausible case for what is in fact your own theological view. As far as I know, no one has made a plausible case for this view. No reputable scholar would make a plausible linguistic case for your theological view because your view introduces ideas, characters, and theology that are anachronistic and foreign to the text itself, rather than looking at the text in its multiple original contexts. If you just want to understand the Aramaic grammar, we can go down that road, if you show yourself to be a responsible partner in disussion. If one ignores good linguistic methodology, which takes seriously the original contexts of the text, you could say that the antecedent of the particular pronoun you want to focus on is ambiguous from a strictly grammatical perspective, in Aramaic as also in English, but such a purely grammatical analysis does not make for a plausible argument in support of any particular interpretation. When there are multiple pronouns continuing to interact, it is not a strong argument to claim that the preceding pronoun or noun or participle must be the antecedent. Much more important in a case such as this is the 'logic' of the text and context, for example where and how the Ancient of Days and one like a son of man function in the larger context, and how these figures were understood in the cultural context of the original author and readers. In these respects, the lingusitic commentaries that John has posted and the questions I have posed to you are entirely relevant. Your responses of minimizing the work of linguistic scholars and misrepresenting and insulting will not serve you well in trying to find a plausible argument for your view or to understand the plausible arguments of others.

Obsidian
09-28-2014, 01:07 PM
If you just want to understand the Aramaic grammar, we can go down that road, if you show yourself to be a responsible partner in disussion. If one ignores good linguistic methodology, which takes seriously the original contexts of the text, you could say that the antecedent of the particular pronoun you want to focus on is ambiguous from a strictly grammatical perspective, in Aramaic as also in English

This is basically all I wanted to know. I respect the opinions of people who know things that I do not, such as foreign languages. I do not respect the opinions of others when it comes to theology.

robrecht
09-28-2014, 01:52 PM
This is basically all I wanted to know. I respect the opinions of people who know things that I do not, such as foreign languages. I do not respect the opinions of others when it comes to theology.Nor are you able to be respectful of others in a civil discussion.

robrecht
09-28-2014, 01:58 PM
This is basically all I wanted to know.
No, this is not what you asked in your OP. Here is what you asked:

Can a plausible argument be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around?
And precisely this is what you deleted from my sentence you just misquoted:

... but such a purely grammatical analysis does not make for a plausible argument in support of any particular interpretation. When there are multiple pronouns continuing to interact, it is not a strong argument to claim that the preceding pronoun or noun or participle must be the antecedent. Much more important ...

Obsidian
09-28-2014, 05:57 PM
I meant to imply an interest in foreign language simply by posting in the Biblical Languages subforum. So far, all the objections that I am hearing are theological (the verses just don't mean that) or sociological (the Jews didn't think that way).

Ultimately, I think it is possible that "clouds" refers either to saints (as in Hebrews 12:1), or else just to power in general (as in Psalm 97:2). If the son of man already has a swarm of saints, or already has great powerful thunderclouds at his disposal, then it doesn't make sense why he would still need to receive power from God. It makes more sense that he would be turning his authority over to God.

I am open to the idea that this belief is false. However, the chronology of Daniel 7 makes no sense if this verse is referring to Jesus's ascension. As we already discussed, Jesus did not receive praise from all peoples at his ascension. Secondly, there was no little horn that was destroyed at his ascension.

John Reece
09-28-2014, 08:34 PM
However, the chronology of Daniel 7 makes no sense if this verse is referring to Jesus's ascension.

I have probably caused some confusion by taking Jesus' allusion to the Son of Man in Daniel 7 to imply an interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14.

An allusion to does not necessarily mean an interpretation of, at least not in the sense of the original/primary meaning.

From Hermeneia, Daniel, by John J. Collins (page 281):


Literary influence ordinarily involves tearing motifs or patterns from the context and transferring them to another. To take a familiar example, there is no doubt that Mark 13:26 ("then they will see the son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory") is influenced by Daniel 7. The Markan passage reproduces very little of Daniel's vision: it is not presented as a dream or vision, there is no mention of the sea or beasts or the Ancient of Days, and so forth. Yet the particularity of the description of the Son of Man is intelligible only if we catch the allusion to Daniel. The allusion is assured by the fact that a few motifs are clustered together (Son of Man, clouds, power and glory), but the correspondence between the two texts is by no means complete. What is required, then, is not holistic correspondence but that the use of a particular image be rendered intelligible by analogy with the proposed prototype.


As I understand it now, Daniel 7 helps to understand Mark 13:26 (for me, in terms of France's exegesis); however, Mark 13:26 does not help to understand Daniel 7.

The little horn was most likely a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, whose life and fate long predated that of Jesus.

To find Jesus at all in the original meaning of Daniel 7 seems to be a case of projecting a subsequent-in-time historical personage backwards into a text that was not primarily or originally about Him.

robrecht
09-28-2014, 08:45 PM
Exactly so.

Obsidian
09-28-2014, 09:22 PM
Antiochus Epiphanes doesn't fit Daniel 7 whatsoever.

The difference between Mark and Daniel is that in Daniel, the son of man is going toward God whereas in Mark, the son of man is (seemingly) coming toward the Jews. Hence, Daniel 7 makes the most sense as referring to either the ascension (as preterists often argue, but which I don't think makes sense, for the reasons listed above) or to some other event where Jesus is proceeding toward God. Hence, my idea. Jesus is done fighting and is turning things over.

robrecht
09-29-2014, 06:15 AM
Antiochus Epiphanes doesn't fit Daniel 7 whatsoever.

The difference between Mark and Daniel is that in Daniel, the son of man is going toward God whereas in Mark, the son of man is (seemingly) coming toward the Jews. Hence, Daniel 7 makes the most sense as referring to either the ascension (as preterists often argue, but which I don't think makes sense, for the reasons listed above) or to some other event where Jesus is proceeding toward God. Hence, my idea. Jesus is done fighting and is turning things over.Again, have you found any scholars who agree with you? If not, why do you suppose that no scholars agree with your reading of the text of Daniel?

The gospel of Mark does not merely cite the text of Daniel but also modifies and interprets it in a new context. Note that Jesus says to the chief priests, elders and scribes of Jerusalem that they will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. This same allusion to Daniel 7 is found already in Mark 8,38-9,1 and again in 13,26-30 in the discourse on the destruction of the temple and both times referring to something that will occur in that very same generation.

John Reece
09-29-2014, 06:57 AM
To quote a world-class scholar, 'exactly so'.

robrecht
09-30-2014, 04:34 AM
To quote a world-class scholar, 'exactly so'.Characteristically, you are too kind, John. We are all amateurs when it comes to understanding God's word and putting it into practice. I wouldn't have it any other way because love is the only motivation worthy of the task.

John Reece
09-30-2014, 06:54 AM
Characteristically, you are too kind, John. We are all amateurs when it comes to understanding God's word and putting it into practice. I wouldn't have it any other way because love is the only motivation worthy of the task.

Even better: an appropriately humble world-class scholar.

:smile: