note that i want this thread to stay on topic, and for the most part i'm only looking for Preterist responses. definitely no hyperprets, as you shouldn't be in this forum anyways. other Nonprets? i ask that if you post to this, please keep it to asking questions and keep it on topic. if you feel so compelled to get on the soapbox, you are free to start your own thread.

in the other thread, James Peter raised a fair point about the Preterist interpretation of Daniel's prophecy. of all the issues he raised, this is the one i couldn't address as a Preterist, and yet it's a critical issue here.

Ok, so the 70 weeks is pretty straight forward, ... this issue comes up a few chapters later. Danno mentions the Abomination again:

His forces will rise up and profane the fortified sanctuary, stopping the daily sacrifice. In its place they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. Daniel 11:31, NET

And then later still, we run into it again:

From the time that the daily sacrifice is removed and the abomination that causes desolation is set in place, there are 1,290 days. Daniel 12:11.

However, in between we find this:

Many of those who sleep
in the dusty ground will awake-
some to everlasting life,
and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence. Daniel 12:2

Yeah. This is a very strong passage for adhering to the bodily resurrection of the dead. In fact, one source i read (i think it was an NET study note) said it was the strongest OT passage for a literal, physical resurrection... and my own readings from the OT seem to confirm that. but, why is this sandwiched together between two passage about the Abomination, if that is a first century thing?

at first, i figured if i looked closer at the context, it would be clearer what is going on. and it is... but if anything it seems that 12:1ff is closely tied to the previous verses in 11. that is they are chronologically related, or at least there is no obvious discontinuity here.

soooo.... what's goin on? time to switch back to Left Behindism?

Perhaps you could give us a break down of how you think the whole passage, ie caps 11 and 12 are proceeding. New Bible Commentary puts a pause after 12.4, for instance, and sees vv5f as a conclusion.

My quick comment (robbing from an old post of mine, only God knows from where)

Now about Daniel 12 and the resurrection mentioned there. I agree with you that the phrase “such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then" is indicating the Great Tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24.
But you see a problem because a “major resurrection” is said to occur in connection with the Great Tribulation. Well first of all, it is pure translators’ bias in our translation which give the necessary impression of a “major resurrection.” The text simply does not say that. It says “many” will be resurrected. “Many” is never used as “all” in the Book of Daniel. A passage from the OT cannot override the clear teaching of the NT that the physical resurrection at the end of temporal history will include ALL who have ever lived NOT just “many.” This event, then, is not the general resurrection. But in Matthew 27:53 we find an event described as a resurrection of “many” which points to this passage:

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Matthew, in his distinctly Jewish Gospel, is the only one who points this out and uses the same phraseology, “many.” The objection might be had that Daniel also speaks about “many” wicked being resurrected, and I believe that they were, but weren’t given the privilege of going into Jerusalem and appearing to many.

****

SD this is one of the more difficult passages - and the centerpiece of a hyperpret response. But as I say above one cannot use one OT passage to over-ride the New which often dramatically reinterprets the OT. The hyperpret use of this passage reminds me of the Oneness use of Isaiah 9:6 to "prove" that Jesus is the Father.

Originally posted by Sheepdog

soooo.... what's goin on? time to switch back to Left Behindism?

Lord have mercy never!

Perhaps the problem is based on the belief that the resurrection referred to is the bodily resurrection, rather than the time when Christ 'led captivity captive' by breaking the gates of Hell and leading the righteous dead to Paradise? We know Moses and the Patriarchs are in Paradise, yet the general resurrection has not occured. Likewise we know some sinners like Dives and Judas and King Saul are lost.

If the event mentioned was referring to Holy Saturday when Christ was in the grave and His Spirit was preaching to those righteous souls formerly held in chains, then the problem would then not exist. :)

Only musing on my part.But never nevr return to left behindism. :)

Peace and grace.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Matthew, in his distinctly Jewish Gospel, is the only one who points this out and uses the same phraseology, “many.” The objection might be had that Daniel also speaks about “many” wicked being resurrected, and I believe that they were, but weren’t given the privilege of going into Jerusalem and appearing to many.

Which verse in Daniel are you referring to. If it is 12:2, then I dont agree that he is referring to the wicked being resurrected at that time. As far as I read it he is speaking specifically of the ones being raised to everlasting life being raised at that time.

Originally posted by Sheepdog

soooo.... what's goin on? time to switch back to Left Behindism?

No. Don't do that. Don't let my actions encourage that....please!

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread as it is, as you said, the biggest problem with a preterist explanation of Daniel. I still haven't really decided when I believe Daniel was fulfilled (I guess I'm a partial preterist technically but much more partial than most) except that every theory I've seen has holes in it.

You are right this is one of the most difficult verses for preterist (but I also think it is difficult for futurist as well).

I agree with Dee Dee that the "many" is the key to differentiating this verse from the general resurrection.

I disagree (but not strongly) with her that this is talking about the partial resurrection in Matthew.

I do not think (but I could be wrong, this is a very difficult verse), that it is talking about a physical resurrection at all.

The best explanation that I have heard of that verse is that it is talking about ethnic Israel. For years they have been spiritually "asleep in the dusty groun". Along comes John the Baptist and later Jesus to call (many of) them to repentance for the Kingdom of God is at hand. Some accept and are saved, some reject and are not.

But that does throw the chronology all out of whack.



That is my opinion, but if one were to ask me which part of my theology I thought it was most likely that I was wrong about, this would at least be in the top 5.

Folks, where in Dan 12:2 is resurrection mentioned? What my translation reads is those that sleep in the "dust of the earth shall awake". Why, if this is refering to the preaching of the Word by John the Baptist does it throw the chronology out of whack?

Originally posted by PaulT

Folks, where in Dan 12:2 is resurrection mentioned? What my translation reads is those that sleep in the "dust of the earth shall awake". Why, if this is refering to the preaching of the Word by John the Baptist does it throw the chronology out of whack?

The "chronology" out of whack was in response to the OP. Where 11:31 and 12:11 are both talking about the AofD (which most preterist place at AD 70). with John the Baptist in the middle (c. AD 30).

I do not think this is a problem but the OP did.

thank you for the replies so far. i'll have to come back to this later when i'm not so busy (and i'll post a breakdown of Dan. 11-12 as Solly requested).

Originally posted by Faramir

You are right this is one of the most difficult verses for preterist (but I also think it is difficult for futurist as well).

Nah, it fits into our view just perfectly.

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard...d=7391&page=15

-Tim

Interesting, I had always heard that it referred to 2 events, 1 that was committed by Antionchus Epiphanes and then another later event which was part of the events leading up to 70AD.

Originally posted by Faramir

You are right this is one of the most difficult verses for preterist (but I also think it is difficult for futurist as well).

It sure is a premill problem despite TimC.

I agree with Dee Dee that the "many" is the key to differentiating this verse from the general resurrection.

Cool.

I disagree (but not strongly) with her that this is talking about the partial resurrection in Matthew.

I am not married to that idea. In fact I am not married to the idea that it is not the general resurrection - notice that the chronology is sequential and thematic - not restricted to a certain period of time by necessity. The reason that I think the Matthew passage is the key is because of Matthew's repition of "many" and the fact that he is the only one to mention it, in the most Jewish of the Gospels.

I do not think (but I could be wrong, this is a very difficult verse), that it is talking about a physical resurrection at all.

If it is thematic, it could be both. Mauro holds that it is not physical.

The best explanation that I have heard of that verse is that it is talking about ethnic Israel. For years they have been spiritually "asleep in the dusty groun". Along comes John the Baptist and later Jesus to call (many of) them to repentance for the Kingdom of God is at hand. Some accept and are saved, some reject and are not.

But that does throw the chronology all out of whack.

It doesn't throw the chronology out of whack at all! Take a close look at Daniel 9. Daniel thematically connecct AD70 with the cross and earthly ministry - they are related, and Daniel, well Gabriel, jumps back and forth between those two time frames.

I am developing, I have said this for a while, a bit of modified preterism that I have been working on in my head for a while, a great deal of it has to do with the "coming" of Christ - I believe He is "coming" for His entire reign. In fact I believe His reign IS His coming which has as its bookends the first and second physical advents. When judgement comes, it is a demonstration of His reign and manifestation of His coming. This to me answers a LOT of questions.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

It sure is a premill problem despite TimC.

Tim C. never sees any problem with his premill view. This is a problem in and of itself. I find it very difficult to trust the objectivity of any one who sees no problem with thier position.

I am not married to that idea. In fact I am not married to the idea that it is not the general resurrection - notice that the chronology is sequential and thematic - not restricted to a certain period of time by necessity. The reason that I think the Matthew passage is the key is because of Matthew's repition of "many" and the fact that he is the only one to mention it, in the most Jewish of the Gospels.

Nor am I married to my position. It is IMHO the "best" explanation, but certainly not the only possible one. I am far from dogmatic. And I agree about the thematic element of Dan 11-12. The "chronology" mess up was in reference to the OP, and sheepdog's concern of chronology (but since you are the second person to question the "mess up" maybe I misunderstood SD's OP )

If it is thematic, it could be both. Mauro holds that it is not physical.

Right. I think I first read about the non-physical interpretation from him. I do not agree 100% with him, but he is sharp on Daniel.



[quote\It doesn't throw the chronology out of whack at all! Take a close look at Daniel 9. Daniel thematically connecct AD70 with the cross and earthly ministry - they are related, and Daniel, well Gabriel, jumps back and forth between those two time frames. [/quote]

See above. I was not the one who this created chronology problems for. It was SD (or my misinterpretation of SD).

I am developing, I have said this for a while, a bit of modified preterism that I have been working on in my head for a while, a great deal of it has to do with the "coming" of Christ - I believe He is "coming" for His entire reign. In fact I believe His reign IS His coming which has as its bookends the first and second physical advents. When judgement comes, it is a demonstration of His reign and manifestation of His coming. This to me answers a LOT of questions.

Sounds groovey.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

It sure is a premill problem despite TimC.

Nope, no problem for our view at all. It places the resurrection of the righteous at the close of the great tribulation period, advent of Messiah, and establishing of the kingdom. Just as outlined in Daniel's other prophecies, the Olivet Discourse, 2Thessalonians 2, Revelation 20, and etc. Fits like a glove.

-Tim

Please start your own thread. Thank you.