Warning: The magic method Hugeit_Slider::__sleep() must have public visibility in /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/slider-image/slider.php on line 262 Warning: The magic method Hugeit_Slider::__wakeup() must have public visibility in /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/slider-image/slider.php on line 264 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/slider-image/slider.php:262) in /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/onecom-vcache/vcaching.php on line 595 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/slider-image/slider.php:262) in /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/onecom-vcache/vcaching.php on line 603 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-content/plugins/slider-image/slider.php:262) in /customers/b/2/c/ayindk.com/httpd.www/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 8 Daniel – B I B L E – ONLY https://www.ayindk.com Bible Subjects Tue, 09 Jan 2024 15:04:26 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.2 Daniel 11: Are we doing exegesis or eisegesis? https://www.ayindk.com/daniel-115-45/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=daniel-115-45 Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:00:00 +0000 http://ayin.dk/?page_id=109 Problems with the interpretation                   of Daniel 11

When reading the different interpretations of Daniel 11:5-45 from the following theologians, one can come to the conclusion that they find it hard to come to a common consensus, on which they all can agree on. Another problem amongst the following interpretations, is the use of Bible Commentaries and other means of interpretations before the use of exegesis. The study then becomes eisegesis, a reiteration of the common consensus of Bible commentaries, plus our own background knowledge and experience. But this is not exegesis.

What is exegesis?

The famous and time-honored Reformation principle repeated in modern times, namely that “Scripture is its own interpreter” or “the Bible is its own expositor,” derives fully from Scripture (for example, Luke 24:27, 1 Cor 2:13, 2 Pet 1:20). It means that “Scripture interprets Scripture,” that one portion of Scripture interprets another, becoming the key to other, less clear passages. This procedure involves the collection and study from all parts of the Bible of passages dealing with the same subject, so that each may aid in the interpretation of the other[1].

The question is, do we follow the basic steps of Biblical exegesis as outlined by Hassel or are we doing our own eisegesis and calling it exegesis. Examples of this anomaly used by the most respected theologians in our church are for example:

Uriah Smith

In his book “Daniel and the Revelation,” he describes the king of the North from Daniel 11:5-15 as the Seleucid dynasty ruling in Syria[2] and the king of the South as Egypt ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty.[3] From verse 16-30 the Roman Empire became the king of the North and Egypt the king of the South.[4] From verse 31 to verse 39[5] the king of the North became Papal Rome. After verse 40 the king of the North becomes Turkey[6] and the King of the South is still geographically Egypt.

Mervyn Maxwell

He wrote a commentary on Daniel called “God Cares”. Maxwell divides the role of the Kings of the North and South with different rulers in history starting with the successors of Alexander the Great from the Grecian Empire. Daniel 11:5. The King of the North represents the Seleucid Kingdom ruling Syria lying to the north of Israel and the King of the South represents the Ptolemaic kingdom ruling Egypt lying to the south of Israel.[7] From verse 16 to 22 the king of the North becomes the Roman Empire and after verse 23 the title is transferred to the papacy whilst the king of the South represented the Muslims during the Crusades.[8]

Jaques B. Doukhan

In his book “The Vision of the End Daniel,” he describes the King of the North from Daniel 11:5-39 has having the same characteristics as the Little Horn in Daniel 7 and 8.[9] The King of the South represents man´s government without God which we would call atheism and an example of this would be Egypt from the Old Testament.[10]

Desmond Ford

In his book “Daniel,” he describes the King of the North as the enemies of Israel for example Syria, Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and much space is devoted to the Seleucid dynasty, especially Antiochus Epiphanies, whilst the king of the South represents the enemies of Israel to the south which was Egypt. Ford goes on further to explain that the King of the North in the new covenant times is spiritual Babylon and the king of the south is spiritual Egypt that denies Yaweh.[11]

William H. Shea

In his book “Daniel A Readers Guide,” he describes the king of the North as Syria including Babylon and the king of the South as Egypt. After the reign of Alexander the Great of Greece, the Seleucids took over the role as the king of the North and the Ptolemy’s took over the role as the king of the South as described from Daniel 11:5-14.[12] After Daniel 11:15 the role of the king of the North is transferred to the Roman Empire up to verse 22.[13] From verse 23 to verse 39 the king of the North becomes Papal Rome who battled with the Muslims and Egypt (the king of the South) during the Crusades.[14] From verse 40 to 45 the king of the North is still papal Rome and the king of the South would take on a spiritual phase like rationalism, atheism, communism, humanism and agnosticism.[15]

It is alright to have different meanings of a text in the Bible from different theologians; however these different meanings should be based on a sound exegetical study of the text and the rest of the Bible. This is not the case with the for mentioned theologians. One of the dangers of referring to theologians and commentaries before the use of exegesis is that the text becomes whitewashed with double meanings and then along with confusion to what the text is really saying.

Exegesis v Eisegesis

John J. Collins

An example of what I am saying can be taken from the commentary Hermeneia, in the book of Daniel, interpreted by John J. Collins[16]. Now I have never met Collins, but when I look at the first few pages of his book, this tells me that he is on the faculty of the theological department at Notre Dame University, which is a Roman Catholic university near South Bend, Indiana, USA. Upon reading some of his interpretations of chapters Daniel 2: Daniel 7: Daniel 8: and Daniel 11: I would say this guy is a genius at using modern methods and tools of interpretation. He is an expert in his field. His excellence in the study of the book of Daniel is second to none. This theologian knows what he is doing. However, he is not using exegesis but eisegesis.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

The proper method of exegesis of God´s word entails word studies, not from Kittel´s Theological Dictionary or from Botterweck and Ringgren´s Theological dictionary. Why? Because these men are not perfect and they come to their word studies with presuppositions which all theologians do. However, your presuppositions may not agree with theirs; so it is best to do your own word studies of the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and it is best to do your own syntax study of Bible passages, going back to the original Hebrew or Greek etc. This does not only mean studying the time period of the text but involves all time periods of the whole Bible. When all the ground work is done in your personal exegesis, then you can compare your findings with the study of other theologians on the subject, but not before.

Exegesis with Dr Norman Young and Dr Richard Davidson

In addition I would say it would be a great help to those who do exegesis, that when the study has been done, then get someone to examine it for you. One of the best exegetical duo studies I have seen is the one between Dr Norman Young, professor from Avondale college, Australia and Dr Richard Davidson professor at Andrews, Michigan, USA. This study was open to all on the internet. They were discussing which day Paul was talking about in Hebrews chapter nine. Was it the day of atonement, or the day of inauguration of the tabernacle? The way they criticised each others study, not in a negative way but to understand the text, was a marvel in itself; just to see how they learnt from each other, so as to come to a better understanding of the text. This is the ideal when doing exegesis: that is two theologians doing exegesis together.

The tendency today is to skip the long tedious study of word studies from the whole of the Bible and in depth exegesis, and quote some well-known theologian who has already studied the passage thoroughly. This method is wrong, but it is used in all protestant universities in the world, because it saves time. This kind of Bible study white washes the Bible doctrines and enables one theologian to have an authoritive meaning on a text and another theologian another meaning on the same text. These studies create double meanings of texts or even more, as in the case to my introduction and seeing the discrepancy of five theologians in the Adventist church over the explanation of Dan 11:5-45.

Eisegesis is imposing the theologians own interpretation into the text, without doing the real ground work of exegetical studies. In so doing, one white washes the doctrines of the church, with the use of quotations from theologians, commentaries, historical-critical method, source criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism. Some theologians take a text and only study it in that time setting, ignoring the rest of the Bible. Other theologians use other languages in that time setting, hence bringing double meanings to the text. All in all, different theologians who study the same text, come out with different conclusions and double meanings, bringing confusion to what God has stated in the text. This is called excellent scholarship in the area of theology and many protestant and Seventh-day Adventist theologians follow in the footsteps of these eisgesis theologians, looking to be recognized in the top theological circles of the world. However this is not exegesis dear friends, it is eisegesis, leading not to an understanding of God´s word, but to enhance oneself at the top of the theological ladder.

Method of study

I will attempt to do an exegetical study of Daniel 11: using the tools of proper exegesis and that includes word studies from the whole of the Bible, syntax and Hebrew grammar. Furthermore I will only use historical sources to fill in the time being explored by the text. The historical books I am using are: A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker[17], this is a pro-protestant book. The other source is: A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity,[18] and this is a pro-Roman Catholic book, hence giving a balanced historical information of the period being studied. I will not use footnotes for these historical sources, but just enter the authors surname and page number when quoting from them.

1. Introduction-The problem with Daniel 11:
2. The Little Horn power in the Hebrew text of Daniel 11:
3. Who is the king of the North in Daniel 11?
4. Who is the king of the South in Daniel 11?
5. Daniel 11:14
6. Daniel 11:15-20
7. Daniel 11:21-25
8. Daniel 11:26-29
9. Daniel 11:30
10. Daniel 11:31.32.
11. Daniel 11:33
12. Daniel 11:34
13. Daniel 11:35-39
14. Daniel 11:40
15. Daniel 11:41
16. Daniel 11:42.43.
17. Daniel 11:44.
18. Daniel 11:45
19. Daniel 12:1-3
20. Daniel 11: Conclusion and recommendation

 

[1] Gerhard F. Hassel, Biblical Interpretation Today (Washington D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1985), 102.103.

[2] Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington D.C.: Review & Herald, 1944), 237.

[3] Ibid, 236.

[4] Ibid, 245,246.

[5] Ibid, 270.

[6] Ibid, 294.

[7] C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, Vol. 1 (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1981), 284.

[8] Ibid, 293- 294.

[9] Jacques B. Doukhan, The Vision Of The End Daniel (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 79.

[10] Ibid, 86.

[11] Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Pub. Assoc., 1978), 254.

[12] William H. Shea, Daniel A Reader´s Guide (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 2005), 241.

[13] Ibid, 245.

[14] Ibid, 251.

[15] Ibid, 264-265.

[16] John J. Collins, Hermeneia: Daniel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993).

[17] Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963).

[18] Tim Dowley, Ed., A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity (Herts: Lion Publishing, 1977).

 

Copyright © 2014 by Tony Butenko

All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Next page

]]>
Daniel 11: Who is this “Unknown Power” that will rule the world? https://www.ayindk.com/unknown-power-rule-the-world/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unknown-power-rule-the-world Fri, 03 Jan 2014 21:00:00 +0000 http://ayin.dk/?page_id=9 The purpose of this study is to establish where the “Unknown Power” begins and ends in the book of Daniel chapter 11:

Method used:

By concentrating on the grammatical pronouns in the Hebrew language,  from Dan 11:45 at the end of the chapter, and working verse by verse proceeding backwards to verse Dan 11:16, one comes to the conclusion that we are talking about one power only. The position taken here is, that the Little Horn power mentioned in Dan 7: and Dan 8: is  referred to in greater detail with pronouns in Dan 11: Even more, these pronouns in Dan 11: reveal that this power is referring to the Roman Catholic church system of worship governed by the papacy, and does not refer to the King of the North or the King of the South according to this study.

Dan 11:45 “he shall come to his end, and no one will help him.”

This is the end of the Little Horn power taking place at the Second Coming.

All Adventist and Protestant theologians would agree on the interpretation at this point. that this power comes to an end in verse 45.

Dan 11:45 “He shall plant his tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain.”

The Little Horn power which is a symbol of Roman Christianity, has planted her system of worship between the seas of wicked nations, peoples (Isaiah 57:20) around the world and the glorious holy mountain which is a symbol of the heavenly sanctuary. (Heb 8:1. Psalms 76:2). Roman Christianity has obscured the work of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary by their system of forgiveness and worship through the priests and popes[1].

Dan 11:44 “But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many.”

The Little Horn power will try to destroy many referring to all those who do not accept the Roman Catholic system of worship. East and the North refers to the enemies of God´s people in the Old Testament (See my study on Rev 16:12). The following nations came from the East and the North of Israel to battle against the Israelite’s: Assyrian, Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and Rome.

Dan 11:43 “He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver.”

Gold and silver are symbols of belief. Rev 3:18 Rev 18:9.10.

There will come a time when Roman Christianity will have power over all those who accept her system of worship.

Dan 11:42 “He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.”

The land of Egypt from the Old Testament is a symbol of atheism: like Pharaoh who did not recognize the power of God at work through the 10 plagues on Egypt.

Dan 11:41 “He shall also enter the Glorious Land.”

The glorious land is a symbol of Gods kingdom her on earth. There will come a time when the Roman Catholic Church (The Little Horn Power) will enter the protestant kingdom of believers including the Adventist church. Matt 24:24. For false Christ’s and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. Many shall be overcome and some will escape. According to the book of Revelation 16:13, the false prophet here would refer to Protestants especially from the USA who have stopped protesting against the Roman Catholic system of worship.

Dan 11:40 has given many problems to our leading theologians in the church. Why? Because they are not using a correct exegesis. They resort to the quick find method like Google on the internet and Bible Commentaries. When you do not do your own exegesis, then you rely on someone doing it for you. That is a great weakness amongst theologians. When relying on other Bible Commentaries, how do you know that they are right?

Let me explain Dan 11:40. “And at the time of the end shall the king of Negev push at him: and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”

Referring to theologians in the Adventist church who take the position that the Little Horn is the King of the North from let´s say verse 22, this gives us a problem. When using the pronouns and nouns for the King of the North right down to verse 39, then you come to verse 40, this same king of the North meets another King of the North. You cannot have two kings of the North. It cannot be his twin brother either. This gives a problem. Not many theologians mention this problem.

The problem is solved if one takes the view that all the pronouns going backwards from verse 45 to verse 16 refer to the Little Horn power only. Hence, the King of the North is another power which we will deal with in another study.

Dan 11:40 “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him.”

The king of the south will be dealt with in another study. However, this King attacks the little Horn power. Dan 11:40 “And the king of the north shall come against him.” This king also attacks the Little Horn power. So we have two kings attacking the little horn power in verse 40. Actually in the Hebrew it is the Little Horn power who attacks the king of the north and the king of the south. It is not the two powers who do the attacking. See my study on Dan 11:40.

The Little Horn power is referred to as the pronoun “he” and nothing else.

Dan 11:39 The pronoun “he” is used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:38 The pronouns “him” and “he” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:37 The pronouns “him,” “he” and “himself” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:36 The pronouns “he,” “him” and “himself” are used for the Little Horn power.

The noun “King” is also used for the Little Horn power in this verse.

Dan 11:35 No pronouns are used her.

Dan 11:34 No pronouns are used her.

Dan 11:33 No pronouns are used her.

Dan 11:32 The pronoun “he” is used her for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:31 The pronoun “him” is used her for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:30 The pronouns “him” and “he” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:29 The pronoun “he” is used her for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:28 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:27 No pronouns are used her.

Dan 11:26 The pronouns “him” and “he” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:25 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:24 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:23 The pronouns “him” and “he” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:22 The pronoun “him” is used her for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:21 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:20 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:19 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:18 The pronouns “he” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:17 The pronouns “him” and “he” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:16 The pronouns “he,” “his” and “him” are used for the Little Horn power.

Dan 11:16. It seems like the pronouns “he,” “his” and “him” stop here and the preceding verses describe the fight between the king of the North and the King of the South.

Dan 11:16. “But he who comes against him.” “He” refers to the little horn power and “him” refers to the preceding verse power which is the King of the North being the subject of verse 15.

Now if Dan 11:16 is the beginning of the little horn power then there should be some indication from the preceding verses of the other three horns which were trodden down by the little horn as it came to power, as mentioned in Dan 7:8 and Dan 7: 24.

Such a verse implying the three horns is Dan 11:14. www.scripture4all.org “And in those times, there shall be many who stand up against the king of the Negev: also the sons of the robbers of your people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.”

What does robber mean?

As opposed to the thief on the cross, who comes quietly in the night and steals valuables; the robber comes in broad daylight like the robbers in the parable of the Good Samaritan and uses force to take goods and valuables from a person.

Who is the angel talking to in verse Dan 11:16?

It is Daniel the prophet. Dan 10:1 “In the third year of Cyrus the king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel.”

Who are the robbers of Daniels people during the time the angel was talking to him?

Dan 10:1 the Persians.

Who were the robbers before the Persians?

The Babylonians. Ezek 7:22

From these texts, we can see a picture evolving of the statue of different empires as in Dan 2.

Firstly the Babylonians. Secondly the Medo-Persians. Thirdly the Greeks and fourthly Rome.

What did they rob from Daniels people the Israelites?

Their homeland, Israel and Judah. They were deported from Israel to Babylon during the Babylonian captivity during 586 B.C. and before. When some returned from their captivity, they were subject to these powers by the paying of taxes.

According to Dan 2:40, and Dan 7:7.19, the power following Greece is Rome. Rome was a robber of Daniels people. However, the text says in Daniel 11:14 “sons” of the robbers of your people. They were not actually robbers but “sons” of them. This is the subject of the verse and not “robbers” as many theologians have concluded. So we have to find “sons” in the plural which came after Rome and who have fulfilled the vision. Which vision? The vision as a whole previously given in Dan 7: Dan 8: and Dan 9.

Where do we find a plural of powers which came after Rome and fell?

The ten tribes, which were the foundation of Europe are in the plural, but they did not all fall. There were only three tribes that fell, according to the vision. Dan 7:7.8. Dan 7:20.21.

Dan 7:23.24. These are the three kings Visigoths AD 508, Vandals AD 534, and Ostrogoths AD 538. These are the “sons” of the robbers coming after Rome. Therefore Dan 11:14 is referring to the starting point of the Little Horn power after subduing the three tribes: the “sons” of the robbers. This is also the starting point for the pronouns used for the Little Horn such as “he,” and “him” right through to verse 45.

Conclusion:

From this study, we can say that the little horn power is not mentioned as the king of the north, nor is it referring to the king of the south. The Little Horn has no name or symbol. The Little Horn power is referred to as only in the grammatical pronouns such as “he” and “him.” Why? It may be the same reason why the Roman Catholic Church system or the papacy is not mentioned by name in Rev 13:1-10.

 

[1] C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, Vol. 1 (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub., 1981), 297.

Next page

]]>