Eschatology: Daniel Passage-by-Passage
I’ll be looking at chapters 6 & 7 tonight, though 7 will doubtless stay in focus as we go through 8 & 9.
YouTube:
I’ll be looking at chapters 6 & 7 tonight, though 7 will doubtless stay in focus as we go through 8 & 9.
YouTube:
There are a number of lectionary selections that skip part of a passage. Sometimes this is for time. Sometimes it relates to topic, but sometimes it is simply used to remove material that might offend. I like lectionary preaching and teaching. I think it forces pastors to get out of their comfort zones and expound…
Bruce Alderman discusses a recent post by the Internet Monk on the topic of how learning to take the Bible more seriously (my summary) moved him away from young earth creationism. I empathize with the process. I find it interesting that people think that somehow the theory of evolution drove me to a less literal…
It’s easy to hope when things are going well, but what about when things are not going so well? What about wen drudgery seems to overcome us?
I have somewhat of a tradition of reflecting somewhere on my blogs about books I am about to publish. So today I want to look at Allan R. Bevere’s new book The Character of Our Discontent. Allan is a primarily New Testament trained preacher who has decided to take on some major passages in the…
I’ve posted the event for my study on eschatology tonight. I’ll be looking at Isaiah for at least two sessions, the first focused on the servant passages as an exercise in interpretation, and the second on the language of the latter chapters and how it is incorporated into apocalyptic and in turn into our eschatology.
No, that the horribly misused book, but the theological concept of general revelation. It is quite common to express concern about the quality of knowledge of God that one can get from general revelation. It lacks specificity, it’s easy to misunderstand, or it has become corrupted. I’m not writing this note to challenge the idea…
It occurred to me when listening to the repeated “according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed” firstly that the law of the Medes and Persians is therefore hugely stupid (any student of law will quickly find that past precedents are a millstone round your neck when trying to find a just result) and secondly that the author may have expected his audience to pick up on that. It rather depends whether the authorship is before or after the advent of a tradition of picking away at the Mosaic Law and its interpreters among Jewish scholars (later they’d be universally called Rabbis, but maybe not at this date…)
It’s an interesting point, especially since I’m trying to look at the book from the perspective of two proposed times of writing and many possible redactional processes. I do believe that the king (Darius the Mede, unknown to history) is being portrayed negatively, but you may be right that the legal system is also receiving a similar portrayal. It would seem likely that such a commentary would be more likely with later dating, though it would fit with the Aramaic portions of the book coming from anywhere from the 5th to the 2nd century as the rabbinic laws are discussed and codified, though probably later in that period than earlier.