By Dalton Baldwin
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for December 11–17, 2004
Daniel describes the winners and losers in a series of conflicts when kings go to war in relation to the nearness of the end. We might think that the purpose for this account is to reveal what the outcome will be before it happens. Our ability to learn the outcome from the account is frustrated by two things. First, God’s providential action in the rise and fall of nations is conditioned on their exercise of free will (Jer. 18:8–10).1 Second, there is inherent ambiguity in the symbols of visions and dreams. These difficulties do not obscure the message of hope for the future.
Most of us have learned this week’s memory verse several times in the past. Did you notice its context? I had used Numbers 12:6 teaching Bible classes for almost a decade before doing so. Aaron and Miriam had fallen into jealous criticism undermining the authority of Moses, saying, "Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? … Hasn’t he also spoken through us?" (Num. 12:2).2
The problem was so serious that God reproved them. He agreed that he speaks to prophets like Aaron and Miriam through "visions" and "dreams" (12:6), but emphasized the authority of Moses, which came from the superiority of the divine communication with him. "With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles" (12:8). The author of Numbers 12:1–8, believed that the divine communication in visions and dreams involves some ambiguity and lack of clarity.
If we recognize the ambiguity inherent in communication through the symbols of visions and dreams, we can better understand how the Millerites made such a big mistake in interpreting the time prophecies of Daniel. We can also understand why between 1844 and 1852 James and Ellen White together with Sabbath-keeping Adventists interpreted the end of the 2,300 years to mark the time when Christ left his mediatorial throne in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary and shut the door of salvation, thus closing probation.
We can also understand why during the last two thousand years there has been such a wide variety of interpretations of the climax of the time prophecies of Daniel. During this period most interpreters of the time prophecies expected the climax in their own time.3 When we carefully analyze these historical interpretations, we recognize that the events that were occurring at the time of the interpretation had more influence on the content of the interpretation than the biblical description of the symbols.
We should not become so discouraged by conflicting understandings of the symbols in the past that we abandon studying them. Almost all of these interpretations portrayed God’s love and concern for his persecuted people, and this brought courage, strengthened their faith, and brought hope for the future. However, when the ending events did not come when their interpretation expected it, they became discouraged and some even abandoned their faith.
The temporal features of the prophesies refer to the nearness of the ending events. Jesus pointed out that since "no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son" when the climax will come; we should constantly live in readiness for the end. How near we are to the end should make no difference in everyday decisions about eating, drinking, and family well being. Being in faith relation with God constitutes readiness for the climax, and we should enter into faith relation when we first hear the gospel (Matt 5:38–44). There is no need to decipher the time symbols in order to develop an interpretation that will increase courage, strengthen faith, and inspire hope.
Somehow people in the early Old Testament became convinced that God brings about obedience by coercive action, punishing the disobedience with illness, poverty, and conquest by enemies and rewarding obedience with health, wealth, and triumph over enemies (Deut. 28). The story of Job corrects this idea, showing that the presence of disease should not be regarded as evidence that there has been sin that God is punishing.
The tenth and eleventh chapters of Daniel show that God does not cause kings, like the little horn power, to persecute God’s people as a punishment for their sins. Daniel’s prayer was heard on day one of his prayer vigil (10:12–13). Daniel only became aware of the divine response twenty-one days later because God’s messengers were preoccupied resisting the prince of Persia. After encouraging Daniel, the divine messenger said, "Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go the prince of Greece will come" (10:20). The divine action of "resisting" and "fighting" sought to persuade earthly princes not to oppress people.
The most oppressive king in the line of the kings of the North obtained his crown by "intrigue" (11:21), not by an act of God. Because this king had free will, he was able to reject God’s persuasion not to be oppressive. The divine messenger said, "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation."
Even though those who "know their God will firmly resist him," they "will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered" (11:31–33). If, because of this prophecy, the faithful expect to be oppressed by the forces of evil, their faith will be strengthened when it happens. If they expect divine protection from oppression, they will be discouraged when it happens.
Commonly, faith is understood to be unwavering, confident expectation that God will protect the faithful from illness, persecution, and death. Tragic things happen when people act on the belief that faith is confident expectation that God will perform a miracle of healing or protection. Such action is presumption. Jesus would have committed a sin of presumption if he had jumped from the highest point of the temple expecting angels to lift him up so that he would not strike his feet against a stone (Ps. 91:12; Matt. 4:5–7).
In August 1973, Larry and Alice Parker of Barstow, California, took their eleven-year-old diabetic son Charles to a charismatic service, where the minister prayed for his healing. They thought they should act on their expectation that he would be healed, so they stopped his insulin injections. Three days later he died. They were later tried in a court of law for second degree murder. In 1988, Larry told a reporter, "We have a better understanding of the Scriptures now. We know the difference between faith and presumption. But we lost our son in the process."4
After radiation and chemotherapy failed to arrest parotid cancer in a Loma Linda University medical student, a godly physician encouraged him to request special prayer and exercise faith as unqualified confidence that God would miraculously heal him. When the pastor of the Loma Linda University Church, the chairman of the Division of Religion, and another minister anointed and prayed for him, he was thrilled because he felt that he had been healed.
A few days later the physician, who had urged him to exercise faith as absolute confidence that God would heal, asked how he was doing. The patient reported that tests showed no improvement. The physician asked, "Who prayed for you? Did they have faith?" When one of those who prayed for him visited him later, his thrilling confidence had changed to resentment toward religion and God. He died angry with God.
When kings go to war or when oppressors persecute and kill believers, the faithful should expect oppression; and their faith will be strengthened. The King of the North was a megaterrorist. The message of Daniel 11 is that you don’t need to be terrified by terrorists. Even if they kill you, there is hope. For those who live in faith relation there is hope for abundant life in time and eternity. This message of hope from Daniel 11 has brought courage and comfort to millions who have faced persecution and death by beastly powers ever since it was written.
Let us rejoice in that hope.
1. "It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional." Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book One (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 67. Richard Rice shows that an omniscient God cannot foreknow free choices in The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald, 1980).
2. Unless otherwise indicated all Bible quotations are from the New International Version.
3. See Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, vols. 2 and 3 (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald, 1946 and 1948).
4. San Bernardino (Calif.) Sun, May 18, 1988, D1.
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
|
