As Gulliver continued on his travels, he encountered a land full of strife internally and externally. Internally, for factions were tearing the kingdom apart. On the one hand, there were those who wore high-heeled boots. There were also those who wore low-heeled boots. The majority wore high-heels, but those in power were low-heeled. The rub was that the crown prince hobbled as he walked about the palace, obviously showing that he was sympathetic towards the high-heeled.

If that were not enough, the kingdom was facing the constant threat of invasion from the small-endians. A war had been waged for as long as anyone could remember between this group and the big-endians over which end of the egg was the correct end to crack. "It is computed that 11,000 souls have at several times suffered death rather than submit to break eggs at the smaller end." The cause for the war was that the holy scriptures read, "All true believers crack their eggs at the appropriate end."

I appreciate Jonathon Swift's caricature of humanity because it could hardly be more accurate. Humanity manages to find the most extreme positions to take on the most serious or most insipid topics. We see this all around us. It may be a religious fanatic or a political nut, but we are all familiar with it. In fact, even in the realm of philosophy we see this as a battle is waged in our own day: Modernism vs. Postmodernism. We tend to be sympathetic towards Modernism for it is seen as the safeguard of absolutes. However, Modernism states that mankind can save itself. This has been the driving force of the technological revolution of the past several hundred years. Postmodernism, by contrast, states that we cannot save ourselves, but that is only because we do not need saving in the first place. The two positions are polar opposites, but could they also be any farther from the truth of the gospel?

Each of these examples has one thing in common: each advocate believes they are right. In every scenario, they act with good intentions. Both of those philosophies believe they will achieve Utopia. Any and every political pundit you see on television, no matter how insane his views, believes they are acting in the best interests of their nation. Even the religious fanatic believes that they are doing the very work of God. In every case, they act on their own good intentions.

For this reason, there is very little else I find more scary than a human being with good intentions.

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is true, but it is also accurate to say that the road to every mistake that any human or collective of humans has ever done has been similarly paved. No matter what the mistake is, at its root lies a good intent. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." From the little boy who sits in the principal's office for looking over at his friend's test sheet to Germans who voted in the National Socialists to keep out the Communists in 1933, they all were guided by what they thought was best. "If the whole human race lay in one grave, the epitaph on its headstone might well be: 'It seemed like a good idea at the time.'"

Every single blunder ever made by humanity has good intentions at its root. That includes the cross. At the cross, humanity was united—Jew and Gentile alike—slapping God in the face, rejecting him and his Messiah. The glory of the cross, however, is that God did not allow mankind to have the final word. God raised his Son and invited us into fellowship with him. At the cross, mankind wished for autonomy from God and the ability to drive itself into the ground. Despite mankind's wishes, despite the worst blunder ever committed, God brought about the most blessed destiny for man working through the greatest good ever done. The legacy of the cross is that despite our good intentions, God can still work.

There is obviously hope in that. However, the hope is not merely eternal; it is temporal as well. If God could bring about good at the cross, he can bring about good in our every day lives. If God can work through the blunder made at the cross, he can use our blunders that we consistently make. Again, there is an eternal hope given to us due to the cross. There is also a hope for the here-and-now. Because of the cross, we know that we turn on our televisions and watch the news and we see another bomb threat, when we see another shooting, when we see depravity becoming more and more evident, we still have hope. Our God is able to work in spite of our good intentions.

 

 

Critics will ask us why God chooses not to work more miracles. It is a fair question—one that many Christians probably wonder as well—and one that should be dealt with. It must be remembered that a miracle is at best a veil that both reveals God while concealing him. Indeed, this is no different from the natural order of things, for the heavens declare God's glory. In addition, if miracles were as common as summer rain or rainbows, they would cease to have their significance.

Could God not just appear to us as he did to the prophets of the Old Testament? It must also be remembered that the prophets did not see God, but a representation of him. Just the same, would it not inspire believers and convert critics if we saw what Ezekiel saw at the beginning of his book? A cloud rising from the north, full of fire and lightening and all sort of special effects that would make Steven Spielberg jealous. In addition to this, the firmament contained the image of a throne with the likeness of a man sitting on it. Surely, this event would spur on humanity of all backgrounds. However, even if that cloud were to rise again from the north, and even if it were to rise every day, how would that be any different from the sun that rises from the east? How would the firmament be any different from the stars that are just as magnificent? Again, such an organization would lose its significance.

Well, what of the stars? Could they not be arranged? "God is love!" That would make believers of untold millions. It would have to be asked, however, in what language should it be written? Even so, such an arrangement would not be so different from the order that already exists. It would simply be a reordering and a new structure for the human mind to interpret and misinterpret.

It comes down to that. In each case, the natural order of things already speaks of God's glory. God could step in and feed all hungry people, but it would be no more significant than the natural order that has been set up by him (people go hungry because of other people's greed, not because of insufficient food). I do not bring these points up to underplay the role of miracles, for they were very important in Jesus' ministry especially. Rather, I make these points to underscore the sufficiency of the natural order.

In each of these cases, natural or supernatural, God's dealings with his creation can be misinterpreted. There is one case that cannot be misinterpreted, however: the crucifixion. That single act of sacrificial love is abundantly clear. The act can be ignored or denied, but not misunderstood. Jesus said that we have God's word and that if we ignore that, not even a man rising from the dead would convince a critic. It would also be true that if one ignores God's word, their mind is already made up that even if God were to open up the heavens and speak with the critic, the critic would be able to rationalize it away.

The centre of the gospel most certainly is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is no surprise that God has been so meticulous about keeping those events free from misunderstanding. Again, it can be ignored or denied, but not misunderstood.

[A summary of H. Orton Wiley's adaptation of Dr. Samuel Harris' work, Self Revelation, in Christian Theology, vol. 1.]

I have a question: from whence a poem?
In what resides the meaning, the purpose?
Is it within paper's wording itself?
Are poems graded by punctuation?
Perhaps its rest lies in the reader's mind.
But shall there be one poem or millions
Shall each reading produce a new poem?
Are we better off with the author's mind?
Will meaning change with a fickle inkling?
The poem cannot be preexistent.
Can it be before its composition?
How can it exist if it's forgotten?
Perhaps it exists only as language:
Subjective, objective. Truth describes truth.


    ~Cornelius Krieger

Annals of Cascadian History

Chapter Three: First Contact

Much of American history is devoted to the development of the colonies and the leading up to the Revolutionary War. It is to their detriment that they ignore the goings on of other sections of the continent. Russian settlements had been growing along the west coast of the Americas since Alaska was discovered in 1732. Some of the first exiles into Siberia made stowed away in ships that crossed the Bering Straight and thus made there way into the new world. Perhaps the most famous of them was the group under Commander Cornelius Krieger.

Commander Krieger led a group of three rebels, Smirnov, Jeirgif, and Lebedev, into the Oregon territory. His journal has been preserved, but, unfortunately, Krieger did not write his precise location down. Perhaps he was afraid of it falling into Russian authorities' hands. Krieger is best remembered for his entry on September 23, 1763.

Sent out new recruit, Rilovich, into the woods today as we continue to conduct our research and survey this area. Jeirgif and Lebedev went to the coast to further their own experiments. Lt. Smirnov and I were doing our daily rounds of the base, confirming that everything was in proper order. Then we heard the scream. It was Rilovich. We instantly started running to him, calling for the others to join us.

The sight was astounding. We never would have imagined it. It was a land slide, of sorts. Logs had been rolling down the valley walls. Rilovich was calling for help as he was in the midst of them, dodging them. Smirnov and I just stood in amazement at what we saw, for the logs fell not of their own volition. Hairy ape-men were ripping them out of the ground and hurling them at Rilovich. We had heard the natives speak of these…Sasquatch…but we only considered them folk legends. Here they were.

When Jeirgif and Lebedev caught up, we came back to reality and realized that we must help our partner. We rushed in to the fray, caught up Rilovich, and made our way up one of the sides of the valleys. The Sasquatch, of which there were two, stopped rolling the trees but instead pursued us, one from each side. I have no idea how we did it, but we held them off in hand-to-hand combat. Romochka and Lebedev took on one of them while Rilovich, Smirnov, and I fought the other. They were strong, they were quick, but we had our knives with us. Our strategy was to keep them away from us more than anything else. After what seemed an eternity, they ran off.

That night we were all ready for rest. As per usual, however, one of us kept watch. This night was Rilovich's watch. About the third hour of the morning, we heard a strange hum. Some sort of flying object, of what appeared to be a giant dragonfly, was landing on the roof of our base! Awestruck for the second time in less than a day, we stood idly as the object unloaded with more of these strange creatures. There was too many of them to make an effective defense anyway.

They did not harm us, however. They did not cause any sort of disturbance. They seem to just want to communicate. Using hand signals we were able to do so. We established a ceasefire as they explained to us that they had no quarrel with us. We certainly had no quarrel with them. They explained that they had been keeping watch over us, spying to see what we were doing. Around that time, a crack came from the shore and a crash came through our roof. We were under attack.

Imperial Russian ships were just off the shore. They had tracked us down. Infantry were rowing to the shoreline to meet us. For the third time, we did not know what to do. Our entire operation was quite literally crashing down around us. The Sasquatch were again the primary movers. They picked us up, most of us anyway, and carried us to their flying crafts. They left Rilovich behind, however.

Carrying us away, they launched a blast of something at the Imperial ship and destroyed it. As they brought us to their base, they explained their position to us. They explained that they had been watching us for several months. They had seen that Rilovich had been leaking information to the Russians for much of that time. Knowing what was coming, they knew they needed to move quickly, which is why things had transpired as they did.

They also explained to me their larger operation. Apparently, the Sasquatch are trying to return to their home. They are spread out across the globe, but this area in the northwest region of the Americas has been declared the gathering place. The Sasquatch are not going alone, they are taking hominoids with them. Any who wish to go may go. They explained their philosophy to us, and we are all in agreement with them. They have asked us to act as the mediators and declarers of this way of passage to the rest of our species.

For what began as a normal day, a new way of life has resulted. We will be returned to civilization on the morning of tomorrow. For now, rest. Much needed rest.

Comm. Cornelius Krieger

September 23, 1763

As has been noted earlier, the Aramaic portions of Daniel form a chiasm: Chapters 2 and 7 deal with prophecies about kingdoms, chapters 3 and 6 deal with the trials of God's people, and chapters 4 and 5 deal with God's decrees (4.14, 24, 31; the writing on the wall in ch. 5). However, one soon notices that chapter 8 also deals with kingdom prophecies and that chapter nine deals with the trials of God's people as well. In fact, chapter nine also has two decrees. One can see a pattern develop:

A         2  Kingdom prophecies
  B        3  Trials of God's people
    C     4  God's decree
    C'    5  God's decree
  B'      6  Trials of God's people
A'        7  Kingdom prophecies
A''       8  Kingdom prophecies
  B''     9.1-23  Trials of God's people
    C''   9.24, 25  God's decree
    C'''  9.26, 27  God's decree
  B'''    10  Trials of God's people
A'''      11  Kingdom prophecies

While chapters 10-12 form one unit, chapter 10 itself picks up the theme of the Trials of God's people. Whereas in the first three instances, God's people's adversaries were foreign kings (ch. 3, 6) or themselves (ch. 9), chapter 10 gives us a look at the spiritual warfare that is involved. Technically, the "prince of Persia" may simply be a political power. It would seem, however, that something powerful enough to hinder a spiritual being would itself be spiritual. Further, Michael is called a prince in 10.13. Regardless, God's people remain in peril, though they are again delivered, as they have been in the three chapters concerning trials before this.

Chapter 11 returns to kingdom prophecies. Much of this does serve as basic outline of history, as did chapter 8 (while not acting as a chronology as some would suggest ch. 9 does). The kingdom of the south is Ptolemaic Egypt and the kingdom of the north is Seleucia. This chapter relates the rise and fall of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There are some (the Archetype Conservative) who hold that since verses 40-45 do not relate to history (and they do not), they must be discussing Antichrist. Indeed, a curious logic says that these verses cannot be figuratively presenting Antiochus and that instead they are figuratively presenting Antichrist (as the Archetype Conservative does not believe that Antichrist will invade with chariots, but tanks (or whatever contemporary device future Archetype Conservatives are using)). To say that it figuratively describes a figure who has not entered this book as of yet but cannot possibly be describing the figure that the entire chapter concerns figuratively seems to be the epitome of special pleading. Nay, these verses describe Antiochus figuratively just as certain passages about Jesus are not literal but poetic. The Archetype Conservative will maintain that they are, indeed, literal, but are yet to be fulfilled and will be done in a literal figurative way. Bah.

Chapter 12 is often used as proof of the resurrection of the dead. Unfortunately, that is not the purpose of this chapter. For a proof of the resurrection, see the New Testament. Chapter 12 cannot, it cannot be read through the eyes of a Christian. It must be read as a Jew several centuries before Christ. Further, it must be read in the light of the literary unit in which it is found (ch. 10-12) as well as within the light of the book as a whole. The book stresses the sovereignty of God and so this chapter also. The wicked are not above God, they shall meet their end (10.13, 11.45). Moreover, the righteous are still watched over by their God. Chapter 12 then leads to the same conclusion that the rest of the book has: follow God, not man. This chapter serves to strike that home. Further, whereas the Jews were taken into exile in chapter 1, their deliverance is sure in chapter 12. Whereas Babylon gained power in chapter 1, in chapter 12, Michael stands up. The chiasm mentioned above is itself bracketed by these chapters that serve as prologue and epilogue. The chiasm is quite deliberate and detailed. So ends Daniel; his intent most clear.

Bibliography
The Holy Bible New Revised Standard Version. Cambridge University Press, 1997
            Daniel
            1 Maccabees
            2 Maccabees

The Zondervan NASB Study Bible. Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1999
Asimov, Isaac, Asimov's Chronology of the World. Harper Collins, New York 1991Goldingay, John E., WBC: Daniel. Word Incorporated, Dallas, 1987
Kohn, George Childs, Dictionary of Wars. Checkmark Books, 1999
Miller, Stephen R., NAC: Daniel. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994
http://en.wikipedia.org
http://www.biblehistory.webcentral.com.au

Chapter 9 is deceptively simple. It records the prayer of Daniel and the answer thereof. Daniel's prayer is rather straightforward and simple enough to interpret. Indeed, Jews and Christians both can learn from the piety of the prayer. However, as simple as the prayer is, it leads into what is perhaps the most difficult passage in the Old Testament. Again, there are four ways to interpret these verses.

The passage concerns "seventy sevens". It is generally assumed that these "seventy sevens" are seventy "weeks" which are in turn weeks of years. In other words, the "seventy sevens" are seventy seven year periods = 490 years. A decree is given that starts the countdown of 490 years. Forty-nine years after this decree is given to rebuild Jerusalem, an anointed prince shall come. Then 434 years shall pass. It is at this time that an "anointed one" (messiah) will "be cut off". Something will then happen 7 years after that. These verses serve to form a chiasm: 

A         25a  Construction
  B        25b  Messiah
    C     25c  Construction
      D   26a  Messiah
    C'    26b  Destruction
  B'      27a  Messiah
A'        27b  Destruction          

The Liberal Scholar states that the 490 years start with Jeremiah's decree of seventy years of captivity (Jer 25.11). This was given in 605 B.C. (Jer 25.1). The first "seven" goes from 586 (the fall of Jerusalem) until 539 (the fall of Babylon). The 62 sevens then take place from 539 until the time of Antiochus in about 170 B.C. The last seven is to have taken place during the reign of Antiochus leading up to 163 B.C. The anointed one that was cut off is to have been Onias III, who served as high priest until he was forced to step down and was eventually murdered on the eve of the Maccabean Revolt. Thus, 586 – 490 = 96. The more astute reader may realize that 163 does not equal 96. The Liberal Scholar makes up for this by stating that the writer of Daniel made an error. Those of us who maintain inerrancy of scripture search for a better explanation of these verses.

The Archetype Conservative states that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem is either Ezra's rebuilding of the temple in 458 or Nehemiah's rebuilding of the walls in 445. In both cases, the construction is to have been done 49 years later. 434 years later is either A.D. 26 or 32, depending on whether Ezra or Nehemiah is used. Thus, this passage leads up to the baptism of Jesus or the Triumphal Entry. The final "seven" has been "suspended until Antichrist shows up. Jesus will come again and then the final seven will finish. Never mind the fact that all evidence shows that Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30 or 33 (not 32), that his baptism is usually held to have been 3 years prior to that (27 or 30, not 26), that there is no reason to suspect that Ezra's rebuilding of the temple constitutes rebuilding Jerusalem, that there is no evidence to support that either Ezra or Nehemiah's projects lasted for forty-nine years, or that there is no reason to read Antichrist into this passage (or any passage other than John's epistles). There is nothing in this passage that necessitates the "anointed one" to be Jesus: Israel has had many anointed ones. Most importantly, if this passage does indeed act as a "countdown" to Jesus (something in which no piece of apocalyptic has ever been so literal), one must wonder why the New Testament writers did not see this.

The most commonly held interpretation is that of the Average Bible Reader. Again, this interpretation looks at the above paragraphs and grunts, "huh?" The Average Bible Reader is to be commended, for they realize something that the Liberal Scholars and the Archetype Conservatives do not: This passage does not have to be so complicated because it does not have to be so literal.

Prophecy is seldom predictive, apocalyptic literature doubly so. The very fact that such a Hebraism, 70, perhaps the Hebraism of Hebraisms, is chosen screams "Don't interpret me literally!" So, noting that this number probably is not literal, that the genre of literature also says it is not literal, that the God of Daniel in no other instance has given such a detailed account of the future, and, perhaps most importantly, we are not told anything about this "decree" that is given—who gave it (human or divine?) or when it was given—it is best to not be dogmatic about the chronology.  Instead, to allow the rest of this book to interpret this most difficult of passages, we can see that the promises of chapter 9 concerning the future are very much related to the promises of chapter 8 (and the book as a whole). This chapter serves again to encourage the Jews of the second century. Yes, desolations were going to happen, but God was still in control.

In the author's experience, there are four ways of interpreting Daniel 7. The first is the Liberal Scholar's view. As mentioned earlier in chapter 2, the Liberal Scholar sees the beasts as representations of regimes leading up to and including the second century B.C.

• Lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
• Bear = Media
• Leopard = Persia (4 heads (7.6) = 4 kings (11.2)),
• Fourth beast = Greece
• Son of Man = Independent Jewish State.

Again, this does not correspond to reality, as Media and Persia were never separate world empires.

The second main view is that of the Archetype Conservative. In this instance, the empires stretch to the times of the Romans and beyond.

• Lion = Babylon
• Bear = Persia
• Leopard = Greece (4 heads = 4 divisions of Alexander's empire)
• Fourth Beast = Rome
• Son of Man = Jesus and (therefore) the Kingdom of God

It is true that Jesus applies this Son of Man passage to himself during the Olivet Discourse and during his trial (Mat 24.30, 26.64; Mk13.26; Luk 21.27), but this would hardly be the first time that an Old Testament passage was reinterpreted from its original context to fit a Messianic context. Further, the Archetype Conservative will go so far to say that following from the Son of Man being Jesus, though also standing on its own (allegedly), this passage is eschatological to the point that it gives a play by play, in conjunction with chapters 2, 8, and 9, of the actions of the Antichrist. Begin rant…

The antichrist is mentioned twice in scriptures. Both of these passages appear in John's epistles. In both instances, "the" antichrist, John tells us, is anyone who does not "confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh." The antichrist (lowercase, not a proper name) is not a person, but many people. It is very important to note that in addition to this, neither "antichrist" nor "Antichrist" appear in the Revelation. Further, the Revelation is so full of figurative features, it would hardly be compelling had "Antichrist" made an appearance.

The third interpretation is that of the Average Bible Reader. The Average Bible Reader is the one who looks at the above paragraphs and says, "Huh?" One sees "the Antichrist" in Daniel only if one is looking for him—looking very, very hard. The interpretative method of the Average Bible Reader is to read these chapters, but more "read over" them rather than dwell on them to understand their meaning. This is understandable: these are hardly easy chapters.

To interpret Daniel properly, one must put one's self in the place of the original audience of the author. So far in this book, Daniel and his friends have been conquered by a pagan nation, had numerous attempts made against them to get them to assimilate, been threatened to be executed, ordered to worship foreign idols, thrown to fire, witnessed the fall of kings who went beyond the authority given them by God, ordered to pray to a man rather than God, and have been thrown to lions. Now, put that into the two historical contexts.

On the one hand, there is the Roman Empire. It is true that the Roman Empire held dominion over the Jews and that they taxed the Jews, but that is about as far as their tyranny went. For instance, every province in the empire had to set aside a certain amount of men to serve in the Roman armies. Every province that is, except for one: Judea. Every province, again, except for one, had to pay homage to Caesar as a god. The Jews were allowed religious tolerance (until they rebelled in A.D. 70 and Rome exercised her jurisdiction). Christians have an issue with Rome because Rome persecuted the early Christians. However, Rome did this only after figuring out that the Christians were not Jewish any longer. As far as Jews were concerned, they were occupied, but their occupation was very tolerant.

Conversely, Antiochus IV Epiphanes did everything he could do to ruin the lives of the Jews. As mentioned earlier, according to the first two books of Maccabees, books that are generally held to be historically accurate though not necessarily inspired, Antiochus' "reign of terror" included forbidding burnt offerings, building alters to pagan gods, forbidding circumcision, killing circumcised babies and hanging them around the necks of their mothers, destroying every copy of the Law of Moses available, killing anyone who held a copy of the Law or followed it, and, finally, offering a sacrifice of a pig on the temple alter. Another account states how he ordered seven brothers to eat the flesh of a pig. When the brothers refused, one by one, Antiochus had each one's tongue cut out, hands and feet cut off, scalped, and, while still alive, fried.

It comes to this: which of these two groups needed the encouragement that the first six chapters had to offer: the Jews whose worst issue was paying taxes or the Jews who were facing one of the worst cases of oppression in their history? The question of when the book of Daniel was written is irrelevant. As far as the author is concerned, it is indeed predictive prophecy, written in the 530s B.C. (but even if it is not, it does not change the message). The real question is to whom was the message written. The Jews of the Roman period would seem to have had little use of the book in comparison to the Jews of the second century before Christ.

Further, to interpret the book in the light of itself, it is predominately focused on the Greek period. John Goldingay states it best when he compares chapter 7 to an abstract piece of art while chapter 8 is a political cartoon. If it was not obvious when the vision in chapter 8 is first stated, the interpretation of the vision marks quite clearly the nations being discussed. Chapter 11 relates, almost point for point, the history of the Ptolemys and Seleucids. Why, then, in a book that is so set on the Greek period of history, would Daniel suddenly break and relate his story to the first century of our Lord?

This, then, is the fourth interpretation of chapter 7: the author's interpretation. According to this view, if the first beast is to be associated with anything, it is most likely Babylon. The fourth beast is Greece. The horn of chapter 7 is Antiochus; the horn of chapter 8 is Antiochus. The reference to "ten" horns is simply a "complete" amount of kings, not a literal number of ten kings (nor a literal number of kingdoms that will be overtaken by the Antichrist). The "one like a human being" is the kingdom of God; interpret that as you may. What, then, do we make of the second and third beasts? They do not matter. It is possible that Daniel is trying to keep up a motif of four, as other apocalyptic works do and as he did earlier. Whatever they are, it should be noted that Daniel himself did not care about them. While the first three beasts receive one verse apiece, the fourth beast is given the rest of the chapter. Again, chapter 7 is an abstract piece of art: you can focus on the threads, but you will never appreciate the larger picture. Thus, read in the light of chapter 8 and in the light of the rest of the book, chapters 7 and 8 are giving a history of leading up to and including Antiochus.

The narratives of chapters 3 through 6 are rather straightforward in their meaning. In fact, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's answer to the king in 3.17, 18 functions as a good summary for the entire book: "If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up." The three Jews were saved from their peril, as also was Daniel in chapter 6, by having faith in God and following his decrees over the kings. God's sovereignty is again stressed in chapters 4 and 5 as God humbles two kings whose heads had grown far too large.

Several interesting things happen in these chapters. First, Nebuchadnezzar's praises in chapter 4 are the first words written by a Gentile in the Bible. This is no small matter as it will be another 500 years before another Gentile's work appears as scripture. Also interesting are the two instances where something happens to which history is blind. History has no record of Nebuchadnezzar going mad or the existence of Darius the Mede. Concerning the former, it is possible that the Babylonians did not keep a record of something so humiliating. Concerning the latter, it is possible that it is another name of a historical figure or that more research will bring something to light. In the past, there was no record of Belshazzar, but this man's existence was proved, perhaps the same will be done for Darius the Mede. Regardless, the man has little to do with the narrative in Daniel.

Daniel's favorite literary device, the chiasm, continues to be used. Chapter 3 follows a rather simple chiasm as the people are commanded to worship the statue, the Jews are put in peril, the Jews are saved, and the people are commanded to worship God. Chapter 4 is bracketed by the hymns of Nebuchadnezzar, but a detailed chiasm does not seem to be present. Chapter 6, however, does have such a chiasm:

A  1-3              Daniel distinguished
  B  4-10          Darius' decree
    C  11-15      Conspiracy to throw Daniel to the lions
      D  16-18    Darius hopes for Daniel's deliverance
      D' 19-23    Darius witnesses Daniel's deliverance
    C' 24           Conspirators thrown to the lions
  B' 25-27        Darius' decree
A' 28               Daniel's prosperity

The themes stressed here in chapter 6 are the same themes that have been stressed throughout this book. God is indeed able to save, but even if he does not, his sovereignty means that he must be served above man.

An interesting thing happens in chapter 2. Starting in verse 4, and continuing until the end of chapter 7, the text shifts to Aramaic from Hebrew. There are several theories concerning why this happens. One theory is that these chapters are the chapters meant for the world and so the text shifted to the common tongue of the day. Another theory states that the chapters following this section are the more treasonous chapters and as such were concealed in Hebrew. Perhaps the transition was merely for literary purposes. Contained within chapters 2-7 is a chiasm. Chapters 2 and 7 both discuss four reigns. Chapters 3 and 6 both detail the account of the four Jews in peril and their deliverance. Chapters 4 and 5 both account for the downfall of prideful kings. As stated earlier, the Book of Daniel uses the chiasm on many levels: verse structure, chapter structure, and even the structure of many chapters.

It is in chapter 2 that the interpretation of Daniel starts to get messy. Liberal scholars, who deny predictive prophecy, claim that Daniel was composed in the second century B.C. by an author using a pseudonym. As such, they believe that everything in the book corresponds to the second century and therefore the four kingdoms described represent Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. It was under this last empire that the Jews were oppressed during the alleged time of writing. According to this interpretation, the "stone that was cut out, not by human hands," is the newly independent Jewish state that followed the Maccabean revolt.

The most obvious problem with this, other than the denial of even the possibility of predictive prophecy, is that at no point in history was the Median Empire the superpower, but rather the Medes gained power alongside their relatives: the Persians. It should be noted, however, that as far as the Book of Daniel itself is concerned, the power shifts from the Babylonian kings of Nebuchadnezzar (Ch. 1-4) and Belshazzar (5), to Darius the Mede (5.31), to Cyrus the Persian (6.28). Interpreted within the book itself, Greece would have been the fourth empire; but the consequence of this interpretation is to make to book irrelevant to history.

Conservatives, conversely, believe that the empires represented in the statue are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. In this instance, the stone represents a fifth kingdom: the Kingdom of God. This theory also has its problems, however. It is difficult to see how Persia was "inferior" to Babylon. Persia's land was larger and more populous. Further, Babylon carried on the practices of Assyria, whereas Persia was by far more ethical. In truth, Persia was superior to Babylon, Greece, and Rome. Under Persia, there were great freedoms between, religion, genders, races, and cultures that have not been paralleled until recent times.

In fact, it is an assumption that the statue correlates to "kingdoms" at all. The same word translated "kingdom" in chapter 2 is translated as realm (4.18), authority (5.18), reign (6.28), or empire (7.23). As stated above, chapter 2 starts a chiasm. While chapters 3 and 6 and chapters 4 and 5 have parallels, they are still their own stories. Each story has its own characteristics and is differentiated from its opposite. Perhaps, then, it is consistent to interpret chapter 2 as an individual reign of a king, rather than as an entire kingdom, as chapter 7 obviously deals with the rise and fall of several empires.

It should be noted that chapter two informs us that Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold. It is not stated that Babylon is the head, but Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed, it is true that Nebuchadnezzar's successors could not measure up to Nebuchadnezzar's greatness, so Daniel would have rightly realized that the second regime would be "inferior" to Nebuchadnezzar. According to this interpretation, the rock that was cut from the mountain was Cyrus the Great, God's chosen deliverer (Isa 41.25ff, 45).

Nevertheless, even this interpretation has its issues. There were five kings from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus, the reigning king during Belshazzar's regency (Ch. 5). Perhaps, then, the "four" regimes are not literal. Note how quickly the passage passes over the middle two regimes. It may be that the number "four" here is no more literal than when it is used in other apocalyptic books: "the four winds" and the "four corners of the earth".

Concerning the story of chapter 2, the major theme is carried on. No man is able to interpret the dream, only God is able to inform man. Further, God is master of history. The moral of the story is also carried on from chapter 1: those who follow God are blessed, for the four Jews are promoted at the ending of the story.