What is noteworthy is the conception of successive world empires. It may be a familiar idea to us. But in Daniel it is given a very early if not its earliest expression in Hebrew culture. The idea is then associated with a climactic termination of human history, which God initiates.

Daniel

He is described as a "wise man," and wisdom is God’s gift. He is a wise man in an alien and hostile environment in exile in a foreign country. He has been taken prisoner, removed from his homeland, and taken into a culture within which he must find a way of life consistent with his principles. His personal fortunes are related to the depiction of the fall of successive empires in the graphic figures of the book. He resolutely stands for his principles and does so with success.

Daniel (together with his compatriots) is a symbol of the triumph of God’s people in the world, in spite of persecution and opposition. In the darkest days of oppression and suffering the readers can take courage from the conviction that God is in control and will bring human history to a triumphant climax in face of evil. Otherwise the suffering they experience may seem chaotic and incomprehensible.

The fulfillment of God’s purpose is in the future. The confidence is in the present. Confidence in the present rests upon the certainty of God’s fulfillment in the future. If the "shall be" is secure, the "is" can be confident. So talk about the future gives confidence in the present. It gives incentive to tenacity and singleness of mind in the present. Assurance of God’s ultimate victory produces grounds for present courage. Call this the "isness" of the "shall be." Although we may contemplate such a future, it is the present that matters.

Aristotle

It is surprising that, in our lesson pamphlet, Aristotle is unfavorably contrasted to Daniel. The apocalyptist is moving on a different level from the philosopher. It could be a distraction to refer to Aristotle, if the reference is a negative and patronizing one, stating and dismissing it in a paragraph. One does not treat Aristotle in that way, if one has the motivation Aristotle himself had, namely the desire to understand. Moreover, the reference to Aristotle is confused.

The confusion is over the idea of "end." In English "end" has two different meanings: (1) terminus: "My life will come to an end," and (2) purpose: "To what end do you direct your effort?" Note that the word fina has the same ambiguity as the term end. Aristotle’s concept is a subtle one. He speaks of "final cause." Things and human beings tend toward their telos (= "end" as "fulfillment of purpose"). So Aristotle’s philosophy is teleological. His "end" is not terminus, but "fulfillment of purpose." (The New Testament knows the difference between eschatos and telos.)

Ask the question, "What is the end of human life?" and the ambiguity of the term end means that you can take the question in two ways: (1) "How will human life, human history, terminate?" (2) "What is the purpose of human life?" that is, "What constitutes the fulfilment of human life?" As to (1), we might ask, "Is it the case that if we have knowledge of how human history will end we shall be in a better position to find a purpose in our life?" Do we think that knowledge will provide for meaning in our existence? If so, why?

Both of these are important questions. So it is misconceived to suggest that Aristotle’s concern about the purpose, the "final end" of human life, is to be unfavorably contrasted to Daniel’s concern with human history as a whole. Aristotle’s concern is ethical; Daniel’s is eschatological. We are in two different worlds, both of them raising reasonable and important issues. But it is very misleading to try to simplify Aristotle, and then set him in unfavorable contrast to Daniel.

We all sometimes ask the questions, "What should we strive for? What is the purpose of human life?" Most of us would agree heartily with Aristotle that it is to achieve eudaimonia—"well-being," "happiness." Isn’t that what we are striving for in our different ways, even if we call it by different names? We access and value things in terms of satisfaction they bring, if not immediately, in the long term.

For Aristotle, happiness does not mean simply pleasure. He does not equate the two. The end of human life is well-being. The quest for well-being is not the quest for pleasure. To see pleasure as the goal of human life is a confusion. The person who has achieved such eudaimonia will recognize Aristotle’s analysis as correct. The fact is that most of us live by his ethic most of the time, even if the satisfaction we seek is different from his. We seek satisfaction, well-being for ourselves, our family, our country.

One of the ways Christians find such personal satisfaction is by assuring ourselves that at the end, terminus of all things we now know, there is something to be hoped for. But Christians are not characteristically gnostic, even if (especially in sectarian circles) they are pleased with their knowledge ("we have the truth"). It is certainly an exaggeration to claim that you can only find satisfaction in the present life if you have knowledge (gnosis) about the divine intervention at the end of human history.

Many people find only a bleak answer to the question about the termination of human life and history. That does not mean they do not have good reason to seek satisfaction in this life. We all know people who live a fulfilled life who believe neither in life after death nor in God’s initiation within or at the terminus of history.

So let us contrast Daniel with Job. These are two very different books. Both in their different ways are concerned with the present. Job is concerned to find how to reconcile his present intense individual suffering with a Creator God. Daniel is also concerned with the present, to reconcile the adverse fortunes of a suffering people with faith in Yahweh. Daniel presents present suffering in the context of universal history. God will be at the end of history, and triumphant.

In view of that conviction we can be certain that God is in the present, whatever the adverse circumstances. So there can be hope, courage, and satisfaction. Job found satisfaction in submitting to the will of the Creator. Focus on this notion: the concern is with the present. Where there is reference to the future its intention is to produce present assurance of God’s control.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE