"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Posted on 10/13/2008 12:30:22 PM PDT by topcat54
Researching some basic Bible verses that relate to prophecy and millennial views will often lead to a shaking of the head, not only due to the many past blundered predictions (of which there are many) of some interpreters, but also due to the nearly comical distortions foisted upon Biblical imagery. This latter class of foibles appears most often in the long-famous array of charts produced by an earlier generation of dispensationalists, and still believed by millions of Christians due to popular fiction writers.
Of particular note for today is Clarence Larkin’s 1920 rendition of “Daniel and Revelation Compared” which includes a masterfully drafted version of the fourfold-metal image from Nebuchadnezzar’s (Neb) dream (Dan. 2), complete with a mind-numbing dispensational distortion to the picture forced by Larkin’s dispensationalism. Since the dispensational system denies that Christ’s kingdom as prophesied in Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45 was established during His first advent (and thus during the time of Rome, the fourth kingdom, with the feet of iron and clay), it requires the author to force a huge gap of time and a hiatus in the reign of this fourth kingdom, both of which are completely absent from the plain reading of the text. But being loyal to his faulty system of prophetic interpretation, Larkin drew in the great stretch-literally.
The gap in time which dispensationalism artificially imposes on the text has sometimes been known as a “parenthesis” in God’s plan for the Jews, during which time the “church age”[i] intervened. Larkin imposes this vast stretch of time on the fourth kingdom-his rendering of the image literally stretches the toes out over hundreds of years (see image above) resulting in a distorted image of a man with toes longer than the rest of his body is tall![ii] I can think of no better image than this to represent how dispensationalism distorts the message of the Bible.
Larkin (following Scofield almost verbatim) believed that when the Stone “cut out without hands” (part of Neb’s dream, Dan. 2:34) crushed the feet of the image, that this represents the Kingdom of Christ demolishing its earthly enemies suddenly, in one blow, and setting up His own worldwide kingdom completely and immediately. Calling the image that Neb dreamed of the “Colossus,” Larking writes,
The “Stone” does not fill the earth by degrees, and thus crowd the “Colossus” out, it at One Blow DEMOLISHES IT. . . . [T]he action of the “Stone” is SUDDEN and CALAMITOUS.[iii]
Scofield had previously written,
The smiting Stone (2. 34, 35) destroys the Gentile world-system (in its final form) by a sudden and irremediable blow, not by gradual processes of conversion and assimilation; . . . Such a destruction of the Gentile monarchy-system did not occur at the first advent of Christ. . . . Gentile world-dominion still continues, and the crushing blow is still suspended.[iv]
He continues with what he considers most important about his explanation: “(1) that Gentile world-power is to end in a sudden catastrophic judgment . . . ; (2) that it is suddenly followed by the kingdom of heaven, and that the God of the heavens does not set up His kingdom till after the destruction of the Gentile world-system.”[v]
It never ceases to amaze me how some interpreters pick and choose one aspect of a symbol which to take literally while treating the rest according to its obviously symbolic nature. This selective choosing is nearly always dictated by a system of belief that is already held by the interpreter and then imposed on the biblical imagery. In this case the smashing of the feet is the object of poor interpretation according to a selective and inconsistent literalism. While interpreting nearly everything else as a symbol, and in fact treating parts of it as a wax nose (I should say, wax toes), Scofield and Larkin (and others) hold this breaking to pieces of the image to necessarily mean the immediate historical dissolution of the kingdoms during the Reign of Christ.
The truth is, however, that they are not even taking this aspect of the dream literally, but rather adding ideas to it that the Bible itself does not necessitate. The text nowhere says anything about how long it takes for these kingdoms to be broken up, nor does it anywhere say that this breakup must be sudden. Nothing in the text requires that the nature and growth of the fifth kingdom (Christ’s) be understood in this way.
In fact, if anything, Daniel’s interpretation of the dream implies that Christ’s kingdom will grow into its fullness, not appear abruptly over the whole face of the earth. Verse 35 states that what starts as only a stone when it strikes the feet of the image becomes a great mountain that fills the earth: “But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” This verse at the very least allows for a gradual growth of the Kingdom, and indeed plainly reads that way. It does not, however, allow for the sudden, abrupt and calamitous appearance of a Christ’s kingdom as a great mountain since it is at first only a stone.
Yet dispensationalists cling to this sudden and calamitous appearance of Christ’s kingdom. Even the modern “progressive” version of dispensationalism appears to hold to the sudden, catastrophic, and yet future view of Daniel’s prophecy.[vi] They cannot imagine Christ now ruling on earth (though this is exactly what Christ says in Matthew 28:18), gradually “dashing” rebellious rulers into clay shards (Ps. 2:8-9), and continually making his enemies his footstool (Ps. 110:1; 1 Cor. 15:25), yet this is exactly what Scripture teaches. The process of making His enemies his footstool, Peter says, was begun at the ascension of Christ (Acts 2:34-36; quoting Ps. 110:1), not at some yet long-distant second advent. It is only after “He has abolished all rule and all authority and power” that the “end” comes (1 Cor. 15:24), and Paul strikingly quotes Ps. 110:1 again to refer to this “abolishing” until it is accomplished (1 Cor. 15:25). So the New Testament is clear: Christ’s rule of earth and the subduing of His enemies began after the resurrection when Christ ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and it will continue until all of His enemies are vanquished, at which time the victorious Christ will present the finished kingdom to His Father. There is no break in the timeline of Daniel’s vision. The stone struck during the time of the fourth kingdom-the Roman Empire-and has been growing into a great mountain ever since. The story of the image’s long toes is one tall tale.
That the distortion of the long toes is the result of an already held belief about Christ’s reign, and not derived from the Biblical text itself is seen in how a later dispensationalist, Leon Wood, reacts when he comes to this text. Instead of simply reading the text and commenting on what it says, Wood adds the header, “The restored Roman empire of future time (Dan. 2:42, 32).” The text itself just mentions a fourth kingdom which the “Stone” would strike and smash to pieces, and during the days of which “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed” (Dan. 2:45). There is nothing in the text that states, implies, or even allows that this fourth kingdom be arbitrarily suspended and then “restored” in a future time. Nevertheless, Wood plants his time gap in the text to fulfill the demands of his system: “At some point in this symbolism an extended gap in time must be fixed, because by verse 44 the interpretation describes the future day of Christ’s millennial reign. . . .”[vii] Gary DeMar responds with the obvious: “no such gap is intimated by a reading of the text, nor by subsequent New Testament interpretive evidence. . . . There are no exegetical reasons to postpone the kingdom of Daniel 2.”[viii] Woods artificially imposes this gap in the text because as a dispensationalist he refuses to acknowledge that Christ currently rules earth from his throne in heaven, which rule will result in Christ’s enemies being conquered. His faulty view of the rule of Christ forces him to expect a revived Roman empire in the future. Like Larkin, he is keeping the long toes of the image stuck in the door of history for 2600 years now. He would rather distort the text than revise his sudden and catastrophic view of the reign of Christ.
This text of Daniel, then, plays a key role in determining the establishment of Christ’s rule during the time of the fourth kingdom. The dispensational idea of a huge time gap during the fourth kingdom is absent and quite disallowed by the text. The text also establishes the purpose of Christ’s rule as the complete vanquishing and replacement of the kingdoms of His earthly enemies, which purpose the dispensationalists accept. They simply cannot accept that this vanquishing happens as Christ rules earth from His seat in heaven during the age of the church, and until the task is completed. They want to see His rule imposed suddenly and catastrophically, and thus the timing must be, for them, removed to some point in the future. This belief forces them to distort the text of Daniel 2, which clearly says that Christ’s rule will be set up during the days of the kingdoms in the image. I concur with Andrew Sandlin who writes, “The expression ‘in the days of these kings” clinches the postmillennial argument.”[ix] That Christ’s rule was established at that time means that the process of that Stone becoming a great mountain must be a historical victory that is still in progress.[x]
There is more discussion to be had on this matter, particularly the aspect of gradualism, but the fact that God has already establish his “New Empire”[xi] is a fact derived from the plain reading of Daniel 2 and subsequent New Testament references to Psalm 110:1 among other verses. That this rule shall last until Christ’s enemies are “abolished” (1 Cor. 15:24) means that this work is now occurring in some way. We must make an effort to understand how this is so, rather than distorting the imagery of the Bible to fit a particular pet idea of a sudden and immediate rule. Larkin’s long-toed image stretches the truth as much as the picture. We need to return to the plain reading of the text; shun the tall tale of the long toes, and every other similar distortion.
[ii] Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages (Philadelphia, PA: Rev. Clarence Larking Est., 1920), 139 1/2.
[iii] Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages, 68.
[iv] The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), notes on Dan. 2:31.
[v] The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), notes on Dan. 2:31.
[vi] See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint/Victor Books, 1993), 224-231.
[vii] Leon J. Wood, Daniel: A Study Guide Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 39.
[viii] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta, GA: American Visio, Inc., 1994), 231.
[ix] Andrew P. Sandlin, A Postmillennial Primer (vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Foundation, 1997), 33.
[x] For a more expanded explanation of this gradualism see Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: Prebysterian & Reformed, 1999) 190-194.
[xi] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007) 155-194.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
|
UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH
. . . as usual . . . from the sources involved.
I was gonna write a huge response to this ... but as I scanned the site that this article originates from ... I decided it was a waste of time.
A reformed theologian does not have the ability to interpret the OT using the OT text; they MUST read the NT back into the Old to justify their millenial views and their silly view of Matt. 24.
Considering the sources and poster(s) . . .
I usually conclude the same thing . . . folks who believe such are not likely to be influencable by normal logic and reasonably verified facts.
America as God’s Kingdom makes as much sense as those religionists that claimed the League of Nations was the political expression of God’s Kingdom on earth.
Politics tarted up as piety.
I decided the same thing when I read the incomprehensible second paragraph. Clearly the author has some rather venemous objections to "dispensationalism" -- but I quickly realized that a paragraph that unreadable, that soon, could only mean more of the same.
Just to drive the point home, I realized that this was yet another "reformed theologian" casting bile and brimstone on yet another of those endless "-isms" that reformed theologians for some reason always take on.... Although, given their stance on predestination and the Elect, it has never made much sense to me why they should do so.
That is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Much of the NT is the apostles reading all that Jesus had taught them back into the Old Testament. There is no correct "millennial view" of the OT without the New to provide an infallible interpretation.
Christianity means reading the OT in light of the New. Otherwise you would be Jewish.
25 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. (Luke 24)
Huh??
“Huh??” what? Are you not familiar with what American Vision (your source) says at its web site?
A reformed theologian does not have the ability to interpret the OT using the OT text; they MUST read the NT back into the Old to justify their millennial views and their silly view of Matt. 24.
Ever, like, actually read any? If so, who?
I don't see where it says anything about "America as God’s Kingdom".
Can you be more specific in your analysis? I'm not seeing how the imagery in Daniel 2 requires a sudden "in a day" tearing down of the old systems in favor of the kingdom of Christ.
In the below quote notice the goal of making America “a city on a hill” and tell me what you think is being referred to.
From American Vision defining their “vision”.
“VISION: An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be a “city on a hill” drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom”.
Still not seeing it. Perhaps you are reading too much into their statement. The vision clearly is for America to be an active part of spreading Christ’s dominion throughout the entire earth. That has always been the vision of followers of Jesus Christ who take His great commission seriously. America can be “a city of a hill”, but it is certainly not an exclusive position. Knowing hwat I do of Gary DeMar, I’m sure he would welcome many nations and cultures to be a part of this advancement, many “cities on a hill” if you will.
In any event, there is nothing in there about America being the equivalent of “God’s kingdom” as you suggest.
The commission Christ's followers received was to preach God's Kingdom by Christ, not to establish it or choose a country to represent it.
You’re still not getting it. Christ commissioned his disciples to bring the good news to the nations. As nations become evangelized they, in turn, move on to evangelize other nations (by their Christian citizenship, of course).
God chooses His people who happen to live in various nations around the world. As those nations become Christianized they become a beacon for the principles of God’s Word being established within those nations.
That is what American Vision stands for.
Just a couple of questions...Who are the enemies of Jesus that Jesus has subdued or vanquished??? If the Kingdom of Heaven is here now, what is the evidence we can look to, to actually see it???
Well, for example, pagan Rome no longer exists having been overcome by the gospel of Christ. Most of the Roman empire was effectively Christianized by the middle ages.
If the Kingdom of Heaven is here now, what is the evidence we can look to, to actually see it???
Hmmm, what evidence do we have that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father? We have the infallible testimony of the Word of God that Christ has been raised from the dead and ascended to the Father. We have the testimony of the Word of God that the “strong man” has been bound and the Kingdom of Christ is advancing. We have Christ’s own command to His disciples to “make disciples of all the nations”. Unless you believe Jesus was some kind of sadist, it is expected that the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit will have real success in making disciples of the nations.
To paraphrase a question of Ronald Reagan: Is the world better off spiritually today than it was two millennia ago? The answer is unquestionably “yes”. More people in more countries around the world have heard and responded to the gospel. Generations of Christian families exists in places that were dark with paganism 2000 years ago.
You have it pretty good, spiritually, don’t you?
Instead of saying once and again that I don’t “get it”, why not read their vision and mission statements.
Since that won’t take long, you might find an investigation of what the “social gospel” is since that is essentially what is being proposed by the vision and mission.
You wrote, “As those nations become Christianized they become a beacon for the principles of God’s Word being established within those nations.”
Not quite what American Vision proposes:
“This future America will be a “city on a hill” drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom”.
Again you write,
“...Christ commissioned his disciples to bring the good news to the nations.”
Not so. Jesus said at Matthew 24:14 that the good news of the Kingdom would be preached not brought. Two different things.
And the preaching was not to convert the the nations but to act as a witness to them before the end.
.
How do you know that just by looking at the word?
Then in cross referencing the event where there is the change from man's rule on earth to God's rule you find that this event is called The Day of the Lord.
Can you be more specific? I don't see a reference to the Day of the Lord in Daniel 2. How to you relate the events in Daniel 2 with the Day of the Lord?
Whether the Day of the Lord of a single 24 day is another issue.
Thanks for your input. I disagree with your analysis of American Vision’s statement. There is no “social gospel” anywhere to be found.
Good Day.
The title had me thinhing what Dick Morris might be up to...
If that is what you are going to hang your hat on, then have a nice day. There is nothing in the word itself or its biblical usage that requires a single cataclysmic event as fulfillment.
Can you be more specific? By that I mean what do you mean by 'reference'?
Sure, without hand waving, just link Day of the Lord with the events of Daniel 2 by using sound hermeneutical techniques.
And you responded: “No issue at all.”
1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 "Son of man, prophesy and say, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Wail, 'Woe to the day!' 3 For the day is near, Even the day of the Lord is near ; It will be a day of clouds, the time of the Gentiles. 4 The sword shall come upon Egypt, And great anguish shall be in Ethiopia, When the slain fall in Egypt, And they take away her wealth, And her foundations are broken down. 5 "Ethiopia, Libya, Lydia, all the mingled people, Chub, and the men of the lands who are allied, shall fall with them by the sword." (Ezekiel 30)The “Day of the Lord” spoken of in this passage is identified historically with the move of Babylon against Egypt in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. This happened just prior to the taking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC.
And examination of the historical record reveals that the attacks upon Egypt were not entirely successful and certainly did not happen in a literal 24-hour day. Nevertheless, God’s wrath against Egypt was carried out at the hand of the Babylonians and constituted an example of the “Day of the Lord” coming in judgment against a people or nation..
Thus we see that not every expression of “the day of the Lord” in Scripture is a reference to some future end-times event, nor is it necessarily meant to be taken as a literal 24-hour day.
Hmmm, not to be offensive, but I thought you were going to explain the Hebrew word in context here and elsewhere in the OT.
So that I know where your coming from, how do you interpret vs 34 & 44? What do you believe it to be saying here?
You don’t need to know where I’m coming from to answer the question, do you? You tell me what it is saying any why it is necessarily linked to the “Day of the Lord” theme as you understand it. After all it was your argument that the alleged “Day of the Lord” connection supported your interpretation of the Hebrew word translated “smote”.
Sorry. I don't subscribe to the slice and dice interpretation of prophecy. The consistency of the language and the theme is ample support for the idea that the same event is in view all the way through the passage.
It's quite arbitrary to divide they way you suggest. One would think they only reason you are doing it is to support your presupposition on the meaning of the “Day of the Lord”. IOW, you have already come to the text with your mind made up as to what it must be saying.
Also, you mentioned in your previous response that "the attacks upon Egypt were not entirely successful. By your own interpretation the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled yet so
Not at all. The prophecy was fulfilled to the extent that God intended. The prophetic language is not intended to be read like a newspaper account of events. Again, you appear to be coming to the text with preconception about what it ought to be saying, and because you cannot seem to find anything that fits that preconception, you are forced to push the “real” fulfillment off into he undetermined future. That’s really just an interpretative cop out.
Alrighty then, no offense given or taken.
But, You suggest that I’m coming to the passages with preconceived opinions of what they should say while you yourself refuse to accept any interpretations that don’t fit your own preconceived opinions irregardless of how simple or straight forward the language is.
For example, I used a widely accepted english translation(KJV) of the Hebrew word which is ‘smote’ and then give you the dictionary definition (cut and pasted mind you) of the translated word which supports my position. But, since you can’t dispute it you simply move the playing field and now want the Hebrew word explained? I just did that but only in english, your going in circles.
Another example, when I simply asked for your interpretation of the text in question you ignored my question and then at my second request you flat out refused to answer simply saying it is of no importance. Illusive.
Last, you give a passage in Ezekiel that you claim shows a point you wish supported but, when I show you how you took it out of context you brush that off as if by a mere wave of the hand the text means something other then what it really says.
In conclusion, since your going in circles regarding a simple word in Daniel and being illusive in other areas I don’t see any benefit to participating any further in this debate.
I hope you have a nice day. :)
Later
JB
Roger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.