Gym Debate Notice:

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

"That Daniel 2 says that when Christ came, He would establish a kingdom that would grow to dominate the earth in human history."

Theonomy will be defending the affirmative and Ted will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Theonomy makes his first post. The debate will last 5 rounds.

This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.

Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

Originally posted by Ted

But God’s kingdom doesn’t represent anything. It really fills the earth. The “growing” is merely a visual way of emphasizing this difference. Nebuchadnezzar and his successors are pipsqueaks compared to God.

What? That really makes no sense, the text speaks of it starting as a rock and then growing to a mountain - of COURSE a progressive growing is pictured. This denial of that fact is a fatal flaw of Ted's position IMHO.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

What? That really makes no sense, the text speaks of it starting as a rock and then growing to a mountain - of COURSE a progressive growing is pictured. This denial of that fact is a fatal flaw of Ted's position IMHO.

Absolutely.

Mountains are used symbolically, over and again, to represent the Platonian concept of "Forms" in our social reality, but particularly institutionalized forms.

These are "mountains" of culturally established "ways" people are expected to abide by. They are recognizable as human behavioral norms in the society, too.

Western Culture has "mountains" of legislation and common law, for instance, arising from twelve ancient pillars, foundations, one heaped upon the other with a traditional acceptance and a historical base hardly open to any significant change.

What Daniel is saying here, is that from this small rock (representing Peter), a mountain very similar in kind to that ancient Institution of Crime and Punishment, say, Jurisprudence, but here, a new institution will be formed.
Daniel is predicting something very rare and almost impossible, that we might added or exchange a social institution to our culture.

Daniel also says in so doing, it will smash other mountainous institutionalized "Forms" governing social interactions.

One such Western Cultural Form was the Pagan Religion:

Rev. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal of
(scripture), and, lo, there was a great earthquake (of social change); and the Sun (signs of Astrology) became (as) black as (the) sackcloth of (a nun's) hair, and the moon became as blood (of Christ, to determine the very day of the pre-Easter Crucifixion).

I am surprised by the lack of attention to the stage between the iron beast and the two legs.

The legs seem to have been sort of taken for granted. They both seem willing to jump to the toes. These toes they see as a device of timing.

What is being said ignors the longest part of the body, the legs roughly equivalent to the head and torso together. If the timing of the coming of the stone (the one the builde's have forgotten?) is inherent in symbolizing of the ten toes, then what time applies to those legs?

I am also not impressed with dismissing the toes as simultaneously governing, since the previous listing of powers was sequential, Babylon, followed by Presia/Mede, Greece, and then presumably Rome...

Obviously, Rome is followed symbolically by two legs, "something" that is divided. The toes have not yet appeared. Whatever it is, if we now necessarily refer to history in order to explain the toes as ten nations arising from and after the Roman Empire, we can not avoid the divided theocracy of 1000 years, a kingdom that falls also. But, this particular kingdom falls with the Renaissance, the release of libidinal interest sexual license in art, poetry, and the mores within the culture.

Daniel has not ignored the first coming, either, because the mortal wound to the iron beast killed it, and we know that the blow was from the hand of Christian soldiers.

I have caught up pretty much with the debate and once again am edified by what Glenn had to say. One thing though and perhaps I have missed a distinction is that I think a great battle was waged on a point, that though Glenn was right on, could have been conceded and Glenn would still have been right - in Glenn and my position the kingdom's could have been all existing still and still all judicially destroyed by Christ at that time, it still was the time of the Roman empire. I saw the distinction that Glenn made, which I agree with, but I just don't think that point needed to be fought - either way our (my and Glenn's view) wins.

I also appreciated his clarification that theonomy is not synomous with the reconstructionist movement.

OK, I posted my concluding post earlier today, my first formal debate is done! I do wonder how many people were reading it, hanging on our every word!

Glenn,

I know two people who were hanging on every word: You and Me. Most of the others have remained silent.

BTW, I did not propose that you had bad motives. I observed what you said, and drew conclusions from those statements. Thus, when you said that "all the parts of the statue were crushed at the same time" did not mean that all the kingdoms were destroyed at the same time, based on your reading of a verse in the exposition, I observed that you were pitting two texts against each other. You never attempted to resolve that problem.

It is quite clear that we were talking past each other. You never addressed a number of points:
1. Seeing the vision as Nebuchadnezzar would
2. The timing of the stone after Rome "became" (lit. Aram.) a divided kingdom
3. The stone explicitly identified as a kingdom in the vision, not Jesus
4. The "crushing" action by the stone
5. All the bits of the statue being swept away before the stone "became" (not grew) a mountain filling the whole earth.

And you specifically ignored the difference between dominion and existence for the kingdoms. Thus your statements about what I said misrepresent what I said. Fortunately, my posts are present for all to see.

I suspect you would put together a similar list of things you think I ignored. And in that regard, perhaps we can do something productive. We may be able to explore specific elements. If we were to put a list together, we might tackle each element singly before trying to assemble them into a complete interpretation. This wouldn't necessarily have to be a debate. In fact, a discussion thread might be better suited. Others could chime in. But moderators would need to keep an iron fist on the subject matter. We could propose a list of topics within the Daniel 2 issue. Each topic would have to be disposed of before moving on to another.

An alternate would be to have a set of threads under a Daniel 2 forum. I don't know if the mods would agree to that or not. It would be interesting.

Ted

I read and enjoyed the debate thoroughly. It will be a resource listed on my site.

Originally posted by Ted

BTW, I did not propose that you had bad motives. I observed what you said, and drew conclusions from those statements. Thus, when you said that "all the parts of the statue were crushed at the same time" did not mean that all the kingdoms were destroyed at the same time, based on your reading of a verse in the exposition, I observed that you were pitting two texts against each other. You never attempted to resolve that problem.

I appreciate that you only intended to say this, but have a look at the words you chose to use and the way you used them. You didn't just say that I unwittingly pit two verses against each other. You asserted that I CHOSE to pit two verses against each other. You also said that I "hoped" the reader wouldn't notice certain things about the text. You might not have thought carefully about the implications of that, but those words just mean that my motives were sinful.

It is quite clear that we were talking past each other. You never addressed a number of points:
1. Seeing the vision as Nebuchadnezzar would

I think that begs the question by assuming neb would have interpreted it as you do. This is in dispute.

2. The timing of the stone after Rome "became" (lit. Aram.) a divided kingdom

I specifically addressed this point on more than one occasion. I don't know what you think I should have added.

3. The stone explicitly identified as a kingdom in the vision, not Jesus

Well that's actually not true. The interpretation is that God will establish a kingdom. I say the kingdom is the mountain, but that the first building block (or the cornerstone, if you like), is Christ. I agree that this element was mentioned less than other elements, but then again I di dreach the wod limit on most occasions, so I had to be selective about what I included. Christ is the thing that came to earth, like the rock, and established his kingdom. Moreover the Old Testament uses the image of God being a rock on numerous occasions (e.g. Deut. 32:31; 2 Sam 22:2-3; Ps. 144:1 etc, there are many cases). This imagery is certainly applied to Christ in the New Testament as well. (1 Cor 10:3-4; 1 Pet 2:4-8). We know that the whole church is built on a foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:19-20). Moreover it is not the rock alone that replaces the statue. Rather, it is the rock who destroys the statue, which is then replaced by the mountain that grows there.

So I don't think there's a strong argument against the claim that the rock is Christ.

4. The "crushing" action by the stone

I didn't fail to answer this, but perhaps you wanted something more? In fact I felt at times that I overly laboured this point, making a distinction between the objective destruction of the other kingdoms achieve by Christ, and the historic events when those kingdoms did fall. I know, of course, that you didnlt agree with me, but if you read through tthe debate you'll see it's just not true that I "never addressed" the point.

5. All the bits of the statue being swept away before the stone "became" (not grew) a mountain filling the whole earth.

Well i did address the simple fact that going from a rock to a mountain involved growth (necessarily), and I noted the way you couldn't respond to this fact. But again, this point just fails to take note fo the distinction I made in the previous point. Yes it's true that the work that destroyed all other dominion and authority fully and entirely occured before the kingdom of Christ began to grow into a mountain on the earth, of course I accept this.

And you specifically ignored the difference between dominion and existence for the kingdoms. Thus your statements about what I said misrepresent what I said.

Actually on more than one occasion I specifically addressed this issue with considerable effort. Here's just one occasion where I did this:

Originally posted by Theonomy

I pointed out that Ted offered a non sequitur, an argument where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Ted showed that in Daniel 7:12 the beasts were granted an extension of life after their dominion was taken away, and he concluded from this that the kingdoms continued to exist until the fall of the final one. And this doesn’t follow. The fact that the kingdoms continued to exist for a time after their domination had been taken away is not evidence that they all continued to exist until the last kingdom fell. That just doesn’t follow. Now, notice how Ted responded to my observation. Are you ready? Here’s what he said:No, that;s not your browser playing up, that really is a blank quote. Ted didn’t respond at all to the observation that his theological conclsion did not follow from the statements in Daniel 7. So what am I to say about his argument from Daniel 7? It is no better now than it was when I last responded to it. It doesn’t follow. Yes, I grant that the beasts were to be given an exension of life after their dominion was stripped away. They continued to exist as kingdoms even after they lost their dominion. But what Ted was trying to show is that they all continue to exist right up until the destruction of the last one, and that’s a boo boo. It doesn’t follow, it’s not stated in the text, so he’s done nothing to further his argument by asserting it once more. We’re still left with the dicine interpretation this is a succession of kingdoms, not one big accumulating kingdom.

Now I said this on more than one occasion. Just have a scroll through the debate, you'll see it. So you're mistaken - I did note the difference between dominion and existence, and I also noted that the argument did not produce the conclusion you had been hoping for.

Fortunately, my posts are present for all to see.

Yes, that's the good thin about those posts - anyone can check our comments after the debate to makes sure we're accurately representing what took place.

I suspect you would put together a similar list of things you think I ignored. And in that regard, perhaps we can do something productive. We may be able to explore specific elements. If we were to put a list together, we might tackle each element singly before trying to assemble them into a complete interpretation. This wouldn't necessarily have to be a debate. In fact, a discussion thread might be better suited. Others could chime in. But moderators would need to keep an iron fist on the subject matter. We could propose a list of topics within the Daniel 2 issue. Each topic would have to be disposed of before moving on to another.

Well really I'd prefer not to. It became clear in the threads that we needed to lay out this issue for all to see, and I think we've done that fairly well. Any major shortcomings that I see with your treatment of this passage have, I think, been fairly well covered in my arguments in the debate. I think you've shown up all of the flaws in my arguments in the debate as well. It's just that I happen to think there really weren't any, witht he possible exception of the fat that there wasn't sufficient space for me to develop the point that Christ is indeed our rock, spoken of in this prophecy. But that's basically done now. Yes there are points that you never addressed, but I stated what those points were in the rebuttals and the conclusion, so I have no wish to simply reproduce the debate thread in this debate discussion thread.

I never did thank you though, at the end. Thank you for taking part Tim, I have appreciated this interchange.

Glenn

Glenn,

Your response is a clear demonstration of how two people can talk past each other. That is why I suggested such narrow discussion threads.

One thing I have learned is that when the discussion is broad, it is difficult to nail down small but key issues, since there may be many issues in play at one time. But if we have carefully delimited subjects, it may be possible to show from those small items that other subsequent items must be understood in particular ways.

I tried to do this on another board by exegeting Daniel 9:24-27 in a slow progressive manner. I worked, sort-of. Other commenters continually tried to broaden the subject. I eventually got through it, but much cohesiveness was lost.

Ted

Congratulations to the two debaters on discussing a subject that probably isn't discussed enough. I read the thread and found it enjoyable.

A question:

Ted brought up the subject of Dan 7:12 two or three times. I don't remember either person explaining why the fourth beast is destroyed first, before the other three that had their dominion taken away for "a season and a time." It's like the feet being struck, and then the entire statue being pulverized together. Why is this and what is the mysterious "season and a time?" Can either debater explain this?

Thanks,

Alan

Alan,

You said

the fourth beast is destroyed first, before the other three that had their dominion taken away for "a season and a time."

That isn’t what the scriptures say. Daniel 7:11-12 begins by noting that the fourth beast is destroyed. Then the first three beasts are given an extension of life. By itself, this passage could be read that way. But that’s not what is being said. The first three, under normal ways of thinking, would be “dead” at the time their successor arrives, since the successor would be thought of as “killing” the predecessor. This imagery is seen in the shaggy goat trampling on the ram in Daniel 8. This is also reflected in “their dominion was taken away.” (7:12)

Because the first three would be “dead” when the fourth is sentenced, there is no way that they can receive an extension of life at the time it is destroyed. Similarly, there is no way that the fourth beast can be sentenced at the same time that the first is given an extension of life. After all, the first (Babylon) was conquered in 538BC, and Rome didn’t arise for another three centuries. This leaves us with a conundrum. What does “extension of life” mean?

Because “extension of life” is different from “dominion,” we cannot declare that the extension means that the former “kingdom” continues. After all, “kingdom” is synonymous with “dominion.” (This is a point Glenn repeatedly confused.) “Extension of life” must therefore refer to the continuation of essential elements of the prior kingdom, but without ruling authority. This can been seen as the continuation of the people and culture into the successor, and is a common feature of ancient history. (I gave examples, but Glenn missed their importance. This is an example of two people talking past each other.)

The problem I see in the common misunderstandings of the judgment scene in Daniel 7 is that most people try to place it at a point in time. That is impossible to do without creating contradictions. Just try the exercise I did above at each of the transitions. Every one creates problems. But if the scene is seen as a vision construct illustrating divine sovereignty, then it makes sense. That is, God is sovereign over all, and at each transition, He declares that the essential elements of the first kingdom continue on in the second. This continues until all are destroyed when the fourth kingdom is destroyed rather than being given a continuation of life.

Glenn refused to accept this, even though this is the clear statement of scripture. But it is seen in the vision of Daniel 2 where all the kingdoms are destroyed “at the same time.” The only way this can be true is if all the successors continue on in essence within their successors. When human history comes to an end, all are destroyed.

This also speaks against the reconstructionist approach. If God’s eternal kingdom comes about via growth within human civilization, then some essential elements of those kingdoms would continue on in God’s kingdom. But the vision shows that every element of man’s kingdoms is swept away before God’s kingdom is set up.

In summary, the verbal sequence in 7:11-12 is just that: verbal. It’s not a description of the sequence of judgment, since the court scene is not within time. Rather, it is an expression of God’s sovereignty throughout time.

As for “a season and a time,” (KJV, ESV), other translations render that idiom “an appointed period of time.” It’s not a specific period of time.

Hopefully this helps.

Ted

Ted I think (and you know I would) that Glenn more than adequately addressed those points, but I guess sometimes the best result of a debate is not agreement but mutual understanding.

Hi Ted,

At first I didn't understand what you meant, but you're assuming that each beast was killed by its successor although the text doesn't actually say that. Then we assume the vision is literal history and interpret it accordingly. One thing to consider here is that Babylon was near it's end at the time of the vision, the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon or about 555 BC, and yet Daniel sees it arising from the sea. If we have to go by history that would seem to contradict verse 17.

17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

It sounds like the kingdoms are future "shall arise." And previously arose "out of the earth," then later emerged from the sea, as if Daniel were viewing a later phase of their existance. I suppose it is easy enough to dismiss this part and simply go by history. But if we go strictly by history we'll find that history says the Median empire had ceased to exist before Babylon ended. Then we switch back to what the Bible says and accomodate it by using the Medo-Persian label. I'm sure you're aware that not all interpreters accept Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome as the kingdoms.

I think you critisize Glenn for accomodating the scriptures to his view of history. Is there any chance we could be doing the same?

In chapter two you see all the kingdoms destroyed at the same time, but in chapter seven you see each one dying in succession. Am I correct? You are saying that chapter two and seven represent a partially historical and partially endtime fulfillment. Chapter 13 of Revelation of Revelation is the endtime part I suppose.

So when we want the visions to be history, they are talking about historical kings or kingdoms, whichever fits. And when we see them as endtime, as in Revelation 13, then the beasts represent something different. They represent social, political or cultural inheritance. Is this correct? Is there any justification for this other than it fits our idea of history and eschatology?

Alan

Ted,

One other thing that might be worth mentioning is Daniel's confusion at the end of chapter seven.

28 Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

I think you mentioned his confusion at the end of chapter eight. He is also confused at the end of chapter seven. If chapter seven were speaking of the same kingdoms and time period you would think the vision would be perfectly understood, as chapter two appeared to be.

AF

Alan,

You said

you're assuming that each beast was killed by its successor although the text doesn't actually say that.

That's not what I have been saying, and the fact that you say this indicates that either you have not heard what I have said (like Glenn) or I have not made myself clear. Let's try to make things completely clear.

1. The vision of Daniel 2 is a series of "kingdoms." One follows the other. This matches the vision of Daniel 7. When a successor arrives, the predecessor is treated as being gone. In this simplest form, the predecessor no longer has power, and the successor assumes power. The means of succession is not stated.

In 7:12, this is echoed by the statement that the predecessor "had its dominion taken away." So far, nothing is complicated. But a question arises: "What is a kingdom?"

A kingdom is people, territory, and government. When dominion is removed, the people and territory still exist. The government is removed. This is loss of dominion. And we see this in history.

2. 7:12 says that when the predecessors lost dominion, they "were given an extension of life." That is, the essence - the people and territory - continued on within the successor. Again, history and the Bible confirm this. Babylon lost dominion, but Daniel 5 & 6 show how Babylon continued on within Medo-Persia. This is a point Glenn denied. But it appears he denied it by expressing the same confusion you did in the quote above.

Scripture declares that predecessors live on within the successors. (After all, they don't go on a vacation in the Bahamas.) But scripture does not give any point where they cease to live until we see the vision of Daniel 2. There we see that the entire statue is "crushed at the same time." The construction is emphatic. Thus, there can be no biblical objection to the conclusion that all are destroyed in a single moment.

This is described in 7:11 where the last beast is destroyed in the fire. Since each kingdom absorbs its predecessors, the last contains the prior three. Glenn emphatically denied this, but again was confusing dominion with existence. If the two are equated, then Glenn's objection would hold water. But since the two are not the same, the objection is non-sequitur. Rather, when the last beast is destroyed, all the other beasts are also destroyed since they are inside the last beast. This is a perfect match for the vision in Daniel 2.

Let's re-cap. The first three "kingdoms" lost their "dominion" and ceased to be "kingdoms." But their constituent elements continued on within the last "kingdom." Thus, when the stone comes, there is only one "kingdom," but it includes all the "kingdoms." But, since the first three are not "kingdoms" any more (no dominion), there is only one kingdom (actually the fragments of the fourth) when the stone arrives. Thus, it is both correct to say that the visions present a succession of "kingdoms," AND that all the "kingdoms" exist in the fourth "kingdom." The difference is that only one "kingdom" has dominion at any one time, but that the essential constituents of all "kingdoms" exist in the final "kingdom."

The Cherokee nation existed before the US. Now the Cherokee nation exists within the US. Does that help?

**
The issue of "shall arise" in Daniel 7 is outside the scope of the Daniel 2 discussion. It should be reserved for another thread.
**

I'm sure you're aware that not all interpreters accept Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome as the kingdoms.

For that matter, it's difficult to find any biblical subject on which all interpreters agree.
**

I think you critisize Glenn for accomodating the scriptures to his view of history. Is there any chance we could be doing the same?

Obviously you are extending the question of "shall arise." Without addressing that question, the answer will necessarily be incomplete.

The problem with Glenn's approach doesn't really arise from "shall arise." Rather, it comes from a failure to accept three facts.
1. The vision must be interpreted from Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint, which is political and sequential. It's not a theological vision.
2. The Aramaic explicitly declares that the fourth kingdom will "become" a divided kingdom. That is the disintegration of Rome in the fifth century. Since the stone arrives after that point, it cannot arive at the cross.
3. The stone "crushes" the entire statue, which blows away before the stone becomes the mountain that fills the earth.

Once those three facts are established, we are able to compare the vision to history for confirmation. That's not accommodating scripture to my view. Rather, it is a process of establishing what the vision says, then confirming fulfillment. That is the proper way to do exegesis.

Glenn's theology will not allow a complete removal of man's kingdoms prior to the establishment of God's kingdom on the earth. He has to find a way to twist the vision to his mold. In his mold, the stone doesn't strike the statue during the time of the feet. Rather, it slowly grinds it over all history. That alone is a denial of scripture. But it gets worse.

Glenn cannot allow the entire statue to be blown away before the stone kingdom comes. His theology requires God's kingdom to rise to dominance within man's kingdoms. Of course, that is impossible if man's kingdoms are already gone. So Glenn finds a conflict between the description of the setting up of God's kingdom and the destruction of all man's kingdoms at the same time. As I said, this is reading his theology into the vision, not reading the vision as God presents it.
**
Daniel is not confused at the end of Chapter 7. He is troubled. There is great trouble for God's people in 7:25. For a man of God, that would be distressing. But it is not the same as being confused. In 8, Daniel says "there was no one to explain." That is lack of understanding.

We must be very careful to read what is written.

Ted