The Narrow Path Ministries

This post is mainly a response to Michael's question, although I hope it will be of more general interest as well.

Revelation can be a hard nut to crack, because the proper understanding of it depends on the proper understanding of so many other books of the bible, especially Daniel. I don't want to go into too much detail because I don't think your question calls for it, but I do want to address two main issues:

1. Is the Beast power past (that is, someone in the first century AD like Nero), or future?

2. How can we identify the Beast power?

For the record, I believe that the answer to the first question is "yes." Both scenarios in the first question have truth to them, in other words. But in order to show why I think the Beast power is primarily future, I'll have to answer both questions at once.

You remember the four beasts of Daniel 7, right? Then you have the kings of the north and south in Daniel 11. To briefly review, the four beasts represent four successive kingdoms, beginning with Babylon, that were to arise on the earth before the Kingdom of God would be set up and established. The kings of the north and south were two of the four divisions of the third kingdom, Greece. But I'd like to show you something very interesting about them that most biblical scholars have never noticed.

Look closely at Daniel 11:45. The last king of the north builds "palatial dwellings between the seas [the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea] on the glorious holy mountain [the Temple Mount]."

When did anyone ever do that!??

Historically, that never happened until 691 AD, when Abd al Malik of the nascent Moslem empire erected the Dome of the Rock and five palatial buildings on and around the Temple Mount!

In other words, the end of the third beast of Daniel and the beginning of the fourth beast coincided historically with the beginning of the Moslem Empire, not the Roman Empire!!

If that's the case, then ultimately the Beast of Revelation (which is to be understood as the fourth beast of Daniel) couldn't be Nero and the Roman Empire!

Interestingly, we get a more specific description of this beast in Revelation 13:2. Read it with me and see if the understanding doesn't give you chills, like it did me.

"And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like a bear, and his mouth like a lion..."

Notice a similarity between these animals and the way that the first three beasts of Daniel 7 were described? It's the same, isn't it?

Let's substitute their modern equivalents, now:

"The beast was like "Greece" (more on this in a second), and his feet were like Iran, and his mouth like Iraq."

The kingdom of Greece had four divisions. Are we to understand that this refers to all of them? Well, how about the kings of the north and south mentioned in Daniel 11:36-45, who come just before the "Great Tribulation" of Daniel 12:1? They would be Syria and Egypt.

Also, "feet" often figuratively represent armies in the bible (2 Sam. 22:38-39; Isa. 37:24-25; Mal. 4:3). The "mouth" represents a spokesman or leader (Ex. 4:16).

We have, "The beast was Syrian and Egyptian, and his armies were Iranian, and his spokesman was Iraqi."

Iran is where we're having the nuclear trouble right now, and they're the country we're most concerned about as far as armies go. Syria is the one that seems to be driving a lot of the terrorist acticity.

Scary, innit?

Damon

All honest expositors admit to the difficulty in identifying the villain in Daniel 11:36-45. Some feel that it must still apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, as do the verses immediately preceding. Some identify him with the Roman Empire, or the Herod family. The Reformers thought this was the papacy. Others have felt that the Saracens (Arabs) or Ottoman Turks are in view. Most popularly (among dispensationalists), this king is identified with a future Antichrist, and equated with the first beast of Revelation 13. The identification of this king with the beast is, of course, possible, but not made obvious in any passage of scripture.

Since the king in question lives at the same time as the unparalleled "time of trouble" (Dan.12:1), and this seems to be the same time of tribulation spoken of by Jesus, in Matthew 24:21ff, I incline to the view that all these features belong to the time of "this generation" spoken of by Christ (Matt.24:34). That is, they all find their culmination within about 40 years of the time of Christ.

This would seem to make the king of Daniel 11:36-45 most easily identified with the Roman Empire. This empire was earlier predicted to follow the Grecian power, in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, and would be the most logical successor to Antiochus in a catalogue of Gentile rulers who oppressed the Jews. It was the Romans, in fact, who brought about the great tribulation predicted by Daniel and by Christ (see Matt.24:15ff).

Did the Roman power "plant his palatial tents" at the holy mountain between the seas? I think it is obvious that this is precisely how Jerusalem met its end--by the Roman siege of Jerusalem. The mention of "tents" (KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, Strong's #168, etc.) suggests temporary structures (such as would accommodate a besieging army) much more than a permanent structure, like the Dome of the Rock.

These things are all associated with "the time of the end" (Dan.12:4, 9), meaning, most likely, the end of the 70 weeks mentioned previously (Dan.9:24-27). These 70 weeks comprise the remaining historical period from Daniel's time to God's finishing His dealings with the Jews as a covenantal people--dealings that seem to have culminated officially just after Christ's crucifixion, and, formally, in AD 70. Jesus said that the events of AD 70 would bring the fulfillment of "all things that are written", which would appear to include those things written in Daniel (Luke 21:20-22).

There is nothing in Daniel 12 that would place the expected fulfillment anywhere beyond the end of Jerusalem in AD 70, with the exception of the enigmatic statement in v.2, which seems to speak of the resurrection of the dead. If this is indeed talking about the resurrection of the dead, then the passage looks beyond AD 70 to the last day of the earth (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48).

If we take verse 2 to be the actual resurrection, then, I think, it would make the most sense to see the last two lines of verse 1 as spanning the period from the tribulation of AD 70 to the time of the second coming. That is, "at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book" speaks of the age of gathering the elect unto salvation--the church age. Those who are written in the book are identical to "the Christians" (Luke 10:20/Rev.3:3:5; 20:15).

Alternatively, the "many who sleep in the dust" who "arise" may not be those of the resurrection of the last day, since Jesus said that that resurrection would involve "all [not "many of those"] who are in the graves." Since Daniel seems to speak of only some coming forth, it might speak either of "resurrection" in some non-literal sense (as we find in Ezek.37:1ff/ Hos.6:2/ Eph.2:1-2), or else, if physical, to those who are said to have come out of their graves at the time of Christ's resurrection, in Matt.27:52-53.

I will not speculate as to which of these options is most reasonable. My point is that there is nothing in Daniel 11 or 12 that necessarily speaks of events beyond the first-century destruction of Jerusalem, other than the proclivity of many to take 12:2 of the future resurrection--an identification that is problematic (vis-a-vis John 5:28-29), and for which viable alternatives may be suggested.

Thanks Steve

Steve wrote:Did the Roman power "plant his palatial tents" at the holy mountain between the seas? I think it is obvious that this is precisely how Jerusalem met its end--by the Roman siege of Jerusalem. The mention of "tents" (KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, Strong's #168, etc.) suggests temporary structures (such as would accommodate a besieging army) much more than a permanent structure, like the Dome of the Rock.

I think you missed part of what I said. I said that not only did Abd al Malik build the Dome of the Rock, he also built five palaces surrounding the Temple Mount.

Here, look at this:

http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ee23.htm

As to the rest of what you said, for the most part it seems to be argued from circular reasoning. In other words, if the Tribulation were in the first century AD, then Daniel 11:36-45 must fit in the context of the first century. But you just said that most expositors had trouble with verses 36-45. There's nothing in Daniel 11, you said, to give any indication as to the time setting.

Furthermore, Daniel 12:2 makes reference to the resurrection of the dead. Did the resurrection of the dead happen in the first century AD? Since it didn't, then by default we either need a separation in time between Daniel 11:45 and Daniel 12:1-2, or we need some sort of multiple fulfillment scheme. That would necessarily mean that the Great Tribulation couldn't have been ultimately fulfilled in the first century AD.

But you've posited a separation in time coming right in the middle of verse 1. However, the phraseology of the verse makes such a position extremely tenuous. We have a "time of trouble" described. The word literally means "tightness" and is in the feminine. In other words, it's indicative of the "tightness" of the birth canal as a woman labors to give birth. This is directly connected with the people being "delivered" - just as a baby is delivered from a place of tightness when it's born.

I honestly don't see how it's possible to separate the two. It's like saying that one can separate a woman's labor pains from the birth of her child.

Therefore, making the Beast of Revelation 13 to be only applicable to the first century can't be correct, however one looks at it.

Damon

Perhaps I do not express myself clearly. I didn't say there is no indicator of the time frame of Daniel 11:36-45. It may well be that the different theories concerning those verses would give the impression of ambiguity about timing, but I have no difficulty seeing a clear time indicator.

The opening phrase of Daniel 12 :1, "At that time..." would seem to make the time of the unprecedented trouble the controlling factor in choosing a time frame for the preceding verses.

I didn't argue in a circle. I said that, if the "time of trouble" is the same "great tribulation" mentioned by Jesus (which is an assumption most interpreters make), then we know, on the authority of Christ Himself that it occurred in the first Christian generation (Matt.24:34). I don't see any circles here.

As for separating the two halves of 12:1, I haven't done anything of the sort. I gave several options, two of which would suggest that verse 2 also may belong to the first century.

If it does not, then the last two lines of verse 1 may span a lengthy period of deliverance/salvation. There is no gap or separation suggested even in this option.

To say that the holocaust of AD 70 was an unprecedented time of trouble for the Jews, but that the faithful remnant were delivered out of it is simply to state historical facts. The church in Jerusalem did escape that disaster, and the continuing deliverance/salvation of "all whose names are written in the book" has been continuing ever since. If a birth is suggested by the terminology, that is no problem. The remnant of Israel was "sqeezed out" of the womb of Judaism in that time of hard labor.

That a single phrase may extend the view of a passage out several thousand years is seen, for instance, in Jesus' statement that, in AD 70, there would be "distress in the land and wrath upon this people," and that Jerusalem would be trodden down by the Gentiles "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-23).

That last phrase looks thousands of years beyond the main focus of the passage. This is not unreasonable or difficult to observe. I have simply suggested that the salvation of all those whose names are written in the book, a process that has been underway for almost 2000 years since AD 70, may suggest the whole period from the tribulation of AD 70 until the resurrection of the last day. I see no circles here either.

Where do you see them?

By the way, feel free to stop this discussion any time you'd prefer. I already know that there are pretty much insurmountable differences in the way we each look at Scripture, so I'm not looking to win an argument here. I'm just basically stating why I feel the need to disagree. *shrugs*

Steve wrote:I didn't argue in a circle. I said that, if the "time of trouble" is the same "great tribulation" mentioned by Jesus (which is an assumption most interpreters make), then we know, on the authority of Christ Himself that it occurred in the first Christian generation (Matt.24:34). I don't see any circles here.

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't see Matthew 24:34 as necessarily indicating the then-present generation, but specifically the generation in which all of the events described would happen. Also, if the Tribulation were to be limited to the first century AD - rather than merely being typified in the first century - then it looks to me like we have a contradiction with Daniel 12:1-2. That's what I was saying.

Steve wrote:As for separating the two halves of 12:1, I haven't done anything of the sort. I gave several options, two of which would suggest that verse 2 also may belong to the first century.

How? I don't get it. How could the resurrection of the dead have happened in the first century?

Steve wrote:If it does not, then the last two lines of verse 1 may span a lengthy period of deliverance/salvation. There is no gap or separation suggested even in this option.

Err...as far as I understand it, the Tribulation was meant to be a short time, not a long time. (Mat. 24:21-22) Certainly, there's no gap between the Tribulation and deliverance, but the deliverance is specifically FROM Tribulation - that's the point I was making before - so it's not a lengthy period either.

Steve wrote:To say that the holocaust of AD 70 was an unprecedented time of trouble for the Jews, but that the faithful remnant were delivered out of it is simply to state historical facts.

I would agree. And yet, what do we do with the resurrection of the dead which immediately follows deliverance? That's why I said that a Tribulation in the first century can at best be only a type, as far as I can see.

Steve wrote:If a birth is suggested by the terminology, that is no problem. The remnant of Israel was "sqeezed out" of the womb of Judaism in that time of hard labor.

Umm...that wouldn't necessarily be an accurate way of looking at it. To draw a biblical parallel, when the Israelites left Egypt and crossed the Red Sea, it was as if they were being "born" as a nation. It was a spiritual rather than a physical birth. However, we as Christians receive our new birth at baptism. Israel leaving Egypt was a national deliverance. There was no first century equivalent, as such, because the persecution of Christians by the Jews (or the Romans, for that matter) didn't stop after AD 70, whereas the persecution of the Israelites by the Egyptians did stop when they left Egypt. So it's not the kind of ultimate deliverance that's indicated in Daniel 12:1-2.

Does that make sense?

Steve wrote:That a single phrase may extend the view of a passage out several thousand years is seen, for instance, in Jesus' statement that, in AD 70, there would be "distress in the land and wrath upon this people," and that Jerusalem would be trodden down by the Gentiles "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-23).

Ugh.

That presupposes that the beginning point is in the first century, rather than at the time of the end. The time of the Gentiles is referred to in Revelation 11:2. It's a specific time period of 42 months during which the two witnesses prophesy in Jerusalem.

Finally, it's the presuppositions which create the circular arguments. You arrive at where you want to arrive because your starting point is presupposed.

Damon

Damon wrote:

Steve wrote:As for separating the two halves of 12:1, I haven't done anything of the sort. I gave several options, two of which would suggest that verse 2 also may belong to the first century.

How? I don't get it. How could the resurrection of the dead have happened in the first century?

Steve wrote:If it does not, then the last two lines of verse 1 may span a lengthy period of deliverance/salvation. There is no gap or separation suggested even in this option.

Err...as far as I understand it, the Tribulation was meant to be a short time, not a long time. (Mat. 24:21-22) Certainly, there's no gap between the Tribulation and deliverance, but the deliverance is specifically FROM Tribulation - that's the point I was making before - so it's not a lengthy period either.

I see Daniel 12:2 referred to in Luke 2:34;

Luke 2:29 "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace,
According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel."
33 And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising (anastasis) of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

First, even though Simeon said his eyes had seen Gods salvation we know that there was more to it then just looking at Christ. He had to suffer and die for the people, which Simeon did not see. Yet it's spoken of as if he'd seen the fullness of something that was still yet future.

Second, in this same passage it says "Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel"

Notice the similar content to Daniel 12:2.
"Many" (instead of "all" like in the phrase Jesus uses in John 5:29).
Some "fall"
Some "rise" the word used is anastasis which is the common word for resurrection. Yet it doesn't seem to be pointing to the distant future (But we know the final resurrection is still yet future).

Paul uses similar language in Romans
13:11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand.


Sleep is commonly used as a metaphor for death, yet Paul is using it here about the living.

So I don't have a lot of difficulty reading Daniel 12:2 as the spiritual rising from the dead, since this is a necessary precursor to physical resurrection of the just. Those who refuse the light Jesus brought are already condemned and later rise to condemnation. The play on words is not unlike when Jesus told the man "Let the dead bury their own dead" (Luke 9:60)

There was literally a time when many were awakened by the light Jesus brought (2 Cor 4:6). This was the time when "many went back and forth and knowledge shall increase" (Dan 12:4) as Jesus put it in Matt 13:17 & 13:35. There was no greater time when knowledge "increased" as that time when Jesus spoke and his words are now the very words we study.

Well, that's my take on it anyway. Added with the point Peter makes in 1 Peter 1:10+ about "this salvation" being the thing "angels longed to look into" (Dan 12:5-6) and "prophets have inquired and searched carefully" (Dan 12:8-9)

But I can also understand how people could see this as the final resurrection.

There was a physical resurrection recorded by Matthew 27:52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

This could be the resurrection of the "many" spoken of in Daniel. The unjust may have been raised as well, but went immediately into "everlasting contempt".

Hi Sean.

Typically, all of this would make sense as pointing to the first century. But there's one problem I can see right off hand with making it the only fulfillment. In Daniel 11:45, we have an individual building "palatial buildings" on and/or around the Temple Mount - which Steve interprets to mean siege tents surrounding Jerusalem in 70 AD. I don't think that's accurate, but that's neither here nor there. Then, chronologically at that same time, we have language in Daniel 12:2 which points to a resurrection!

Even if there was a physical resurrection when Jesus died (which I already knew about, by the way), and even if Paul referred to spiritual salvation in terms of a "resurrection" (and that's what baptism is, basically!) - it doesn't chronologically fit together with 70 AD! I just don't see a lot of individuals being baptized or spiritually resurrected in 70 AD. Do you?

Damon

Damon,

Just a couple of points...

You wrote: "That presupposes that the beginning point [of the Gentiles' treading upon Jerusalem] is in the first century, rather than at the time of the end."

Actually, it presupposes that "the time of the end" was, in fact, in the first century. My "presupposition" is based upon the rather unambiguous statements of Jesus to four disciples (Peter, James, John & Andrew--Mark 13:3) that, when they would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, its desolation would be near and that would begin a lengthy period of trampling of the city by Gentiles (Luke 21:20-23).

There is little else that can be made of these words than to apply them to AD 70 (the first century) and that this was to be "the time of the end" of the Jewish economy. In case it was not already clear enough without it, Jesus goes further and says, "this generation will not pass before all of these things are accomplished" (Luke 21:32).

You feel that "this generation" means some later generation. However, if you will examine the other statements where Jesus spoke about "this generation," you will see that it always refers to the generation that heard John the baptist and Jesus preach, and that saw the miracles performed by Christ (Matt.11:16-19; 12:39-45; 23:36). Why would He make the switch, without notice, in this case?

By presupposing that Jesus is describing a period in the future, rather than in the past, it is you that are presupposing without scriptural warrant. I think you are making a grave error in using Revelation to interpret the Gospels. It is a general rule of hermeneutics that the clearer passages should be used to clarify the obscure passages. That Revelation is the most obscure book of the New Testament seems indisputable (that is why there are more conflicting interpretations of it than there are of any other book).

Where Revelation speaks of a topic (e.g., the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles--11:2), and the same event is mentioned in a less obscure passage of scripture (Luke 21:20-23), then it is more wise to allow the clear passage to control the interpretation of the obscure. This means that, whereas Luke speaks of the trampling of Jerusalem beginning in AD 70 and continuing through the entire age of the Gentiles, and Revelation calls this period "42 months," it would be best to see "42 months" as the symbolic designation for the longer period. Most interpreters (including dispensationalists) recognise that Revelation uses symbolic designations for time periods (e.g. "ten days," in 2:10; and "one hour," in 17:12). Why should we assume otherwise about the "42 months"?

I am sure you are not going to be convinced of another opinion, but I just hope you won't accuse those of us who feel better standing on the statements of Christ than on the speculations of futurism, of "blowing-off" your arguments. Some of us want more scriptural evidence before we accept such seemingly unfounded claims that go against what looks to be clearly stated in scripture.

Unlike you, I have no problem seeing the "resurrection" of Daniel 12:2 as something associated with the great transition between the Old and the New covenants, which occurred in AD 70. If you have difficulty seeing it this way, I have no problem with you holding your own opinions. I don't think, however, that you are listening or looking at the scriptures that Sean and I have referenced in our posts. If you compare, for example, the scriptures Sean gave in 1 Peter with the material in Daniel 12, I think it is quite impressive.

There remains a problem seeing Daniel 12:2 as the future resurrection. It is a problem that I have not seen you address, although you take the verse in that way. Daniel speaks of "many" who sleep in the dust arising. The wording suggests that not all arise at the time referenced. Here is the problem:

There are two orthodox views of the resurrection.

The amillennial view holds that there is one general resurrection of all people at a single moment (John 5:28-29). Daniel 12:2 seems to speak of only some rising, which means the verse does not perfectly fit the amillennial view of the resurrection of the last day.

The premillennialist believes in two resurrections: the resurrection of the righteous at the coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the lost, one-thousand years later. This doesn't fit Daniel 12:2 either, since Daniel speaks of people, on one occasion, rising to everlasting life or to everlasting contempt. Thus this does not correspond with the resurrection of only the just (the first resurrection) or with the resurrection of only thew wicked (the second resurrection).

Thus, whichever view of the resurection one may choose to take, Daniel 12:2 does not fit. There may be some clever way in which someone will find a harmony between this verse and some scheme of the final resurrection, but I prefer not to strain the text unnecessarily, since a first century fulfillment of a non-literal resurrection fits the context better.

Steve wrote:Damon,

Just a couple of points...

You wrote: "That presupposes that the beginning point [of the Gentiles' treading upon Jerusalem] is in the first century, rather than at the time of the end."

Actually, it presupposes that "the time of the end" was, in fact, in the first century.

So what you're saying is that, rather than talking about two separate times - in other words, Jesus immediately referring to events that would happen in the disciples lifetimes and the 42 months in Revelation referring to the time just prior to Christ's return - they're both talking about the same time?

That seems to be contradictory to me. After all, where are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11? These are spoken of as "two prophets" - meaning that they were two literal individuals - who died and three days later were resurrected.

Steve wrote:You feel that "this generation" means some later generation. However, if you will examine the other statements where Jesus spoke about "this generation," you will see that it always refers to the generation that heard John the baptist and Jesus preach, and that saw the miracles performed by Christ (Matt.11:16-19; 12:39-45; 23:36). Why would He make the exception, without notice, in this case?

For the clear and simple reason that Jesus was talking about not only events shortly to come, but also events just prior to His return. After all, the disciples asked Him what the sign of His coming would be, and He described all of the events leading up to it.

That's why I keep saying that I think there's a lot of merit to the preterist viewpoint, but that it's not the whole picture.

Steve wrote:I think you are making a grave error in using Revelation to interpret the Gospels. It is a general rule of hermeneutics that the clearer passages should be used to clarify the obscure passages. That Revelation is the most obscure book of the New Testament seems indisputable (that is why there are more conflicting interpretations of it than there are of any other book).

Okay, I also used Matthew 24 itself to back up what I'd said. Secondly, the reason why Revelation hasn't heretofore been well-understood is because, just like the parable of light dawning over the horizon, it wasn't meant to be understood until shortly before the time in which the events contained in it were to be ultimately fulfilled. The fact that it's still not well-understood means we're not quite there yet!

Steve wrote:This means that, whereas Luke speaks of the trampling of Jerusalem beginning in AD 70 and continuing through the entire age of the Gentiles, and Revelation calls this period "42 months," it would be best to see "42 months" as the symbolic designation for the longer period. Most interpreters (including dispensationalists) recognise that Revelation uses symbolic designations for time periods (e.g. "ten days," in 2:10; and "one hour," in 17:12). Why should we assume otherwise about the "42 months"?

Allow me to enlighten you on what the ten days mean, then, because they are indeed a literal period of ten days. The Jews call them the "ten days of awe". They're the period of ten days between the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 23). It's traditionally understood that one starts out with a "clean slate" with the Feast of Trumpets, since it was originally the beginning of the year. (Now it's the seventh month, since the months were renumbered in Ex. 12:2.) However, even though one is considered to be reconciled with God, it's provisional upon being reconciled with one another during these ten days. Otherwise, one's name is blotted out of the book of life.

Rev. 2:10 points to a period of intense tribulation for these ten days, meaning that one would have to be reconciled with one another no matter how difficult the circumstances were. This parallels the understanding in Matthew 24:12-13.

As far as the 42 months go, interpreters are certainly free to posit a much longer period of time, but going back to what I said before about Matthew 24 pointing to two separate fulfillments, I don't see any solid ground for them to stand on in doing so.

Steve wrote:I am sure you are not going to be convinced of another opinion, but I just hope you won't accuse those of us who feel better standing on the statements of Christ than on the speculations of futurism, of "blowing-off" your arguments. Some of us want more scriptural evidence before we accept such seemingly unfounded claims that go against what seems clearly stated in scripture.

I'm beginning to see that you're not deliberately misreading what I'm saying, you're just not discerning it well enough. I don't think you have it in you to see what I'm saying some of the time. There were times when you, and others on this forum, did "blow off" what I had to say without looking into it at all or even trying to give me an answer. There were other times when you, and others on this forum, didn't do that. You state that my claims are unfounded, and yet I've given you proofs that you haven't been able to answer. I'm beginning to see that you're not lying. You're just not seeing everything there is to see. You really don't see the points I'm making and why they convince me, even though you are unconvinced.

*shrugs* I guess I'll just have to live with that.

Steve wrote:I have no problem seeing the "resurrection" of Daniel 12:2 as something associated with the great transition between the Old and the New covenants, which occurred in AD 70. If you have difficulty seeing it this way, I have no problem with you holding your own opinions. I don't think, however, that you are listening or looking at the scriptures that Sean and I have referenced in our posts. If you compare, for example, the scriptures Sean gave in 1 Peter with the material in Daniel 12, I think it is quite impressive.

I did look at the passage in question, and I remain unconvinced. The other points that Daniel specifically claimed to not understand in Daniel 12 were not explained in 1 Peter or anywhere else that I can see. Daniel 12:7 makes reference to a period of three and a half "times" which is mentioned in Revelation, but not explained. We also have Daniel 12:11-13 which isn't even referenced or quoted. Plus, Daniel specifically is said to "stand in his lot" at the end of this time period involving the abomination of desolation. In other words, it's talking about the resurrection of the dead.

Steve wrote:There remains a problem seeing Daniel 12:2 as the future resurrection. It is a problem that I have not seen you address, although you take the verse in that way. Daniel speaks of "many" who sleep in the dust arising. The wording suggests that not all arise at the time referenced.

Right, because there are two resurrections. Revelation talks about that. As far as your point about it not fitting Daniel 12, I honestly don't see how 70 AD fits a resurrection of the wicked as well as the righteous any better. But I'm certainly willing to think about it and pray about it, since right this moment, I don't see how it fits myself.

Steve wrote:There may be some clever way in which someone will find a harmony between this verse and some scheme of the final resurrection, but I prefer not to strain the text unnecessarily, since a first century fulfillment of a non-literal resurrection fits the context better.

Well - and we both knew this was coming - I really can't see it that way. I can certainly see the physical resurrection at Jesus' death as a type, although no wicked were resurrected then. I can see our baptism as a type, although a type that likewise doesn't fit Daniel 12:2. I just can't see 70 AD as an ultimate fulfillment. I see no ultimate deliverance of Christians from persecution there, which would parallel it with Israel's deliverance from Egypt. I see a measure of deliverance, but at best it's but a type.

Damon