Dan4:6-32 second interpretation

[Waynec]

Hi,
I am in a conversation with a person that is telling me that the above scripture has 2 fulfillment’s.

It is about Daniel interpreting the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had you know about the 7 years eating grass and the tree stump with the bands around it.

I believe that it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar’s time and this person believes that it also had a later fulfillment.

What is the Catholic belief in regards to this?

Thanks

 

[Todd977]

Haydock’s commentary on Daniel 4:13 hints at a possible second fulfillment, saying, in part, “Origen represents the whole as an allegorical description of the fall of Lucifer. … But his arguments have made little impression…” here

 

[DelsonJacobs]

The Catholic Church does not have a definitive (dogmatic) statement regarding the full meaning of Daniel chapter 4 as to whether the author was presenting an historical account or writing in a genre known as “edifying narrative.” Many scholars are of the opinion that it is likely this second case regarding the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the tree of Daniel chapter 4.

An example of “edifying narrative” is the American legend of George Washington who when a boy of six, as the story goes, chopped down his father’s favorite cherry tree upon receiving a small hatchet as a gift. When confronted by his father over what had become of his favorite tree, young George replied amidst tears: “I cannot tell a lie, father! I did it with my little hatchet.” George’s father didn’t punish him as a result because, as the father reportedly stated: “To tell the truth is worth more than a thousand cherry trees!”

While it is accepted as nothing more than a legend, it has an enduring truth in it nonetheless. This is an example of an “edifying narrative,” and the story in Daniel chapter 4 seems to be of this genre for the following reasons:

1. 
   *]There is no historical record that these events happened to Nebuchadnezzar. While there is a gap of recorded military activity on the part of Nebuchadnezzar between the years of 582 and 575 B.C.E., nothing is ever mentioned regarding his mental capacity. The Babylonians kept very good records too.
   
   *]The events of Daniel 4 are identical to the events in the Prayer of Nabonidus, a document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and the father of Belshazzar, the same “King” Belshazzar who saw the writing on the wall in the following chapter (5) of Daniel. Belshazzar was actually the crown prince and was left to govern the empire while his father Nabonidus was away. Nabonidus actually stayed away from Babylon and lived in Teyma for some ten years (around 553-543 B.C.E.), and there is little said of why he did so except for what is provided in the Prayer of Nabonidus. This Aramaic text from Qumran Cave 4 (known as 4Q242) claims that it was Nabonidus who was ill, lived isolated for seven years and as a result became convinced of the truth of the Jewish monotheistic creed.
   
   The story seems to be an object lesson in humility for rulers and kings that would follow after the fall of the Babylonian empire. If God could cause such a great power and king to be humbled, all kings to follow should be careful lest they suffer the same fate as “Nebuchadnezzar” did for his pride.
   
   Is it a prophecy? Not likely. The “seven years” in the narrative are not said to stand for anything else but years. Older translations use the term “times” instead of “years,” but the words are equivalent to one another. Nothing in the text claims that the “seven years” are meant to be a symbol for something else as the fulfillment of seven years is literal upon “Nebuchadnezzar” within the very narrative of Daniel 4 itself.
   
   While some have seen a reference to Jesus Christ in the words “setting it over the lowliest of mankind” of Daniel 4:14 (4:17 in some Bibles), this is but a common idiom that occurs in many places in Scripture, with 1 Samuel 2:8 and Luke 1:52 being two examples. The expression in all three cases can be (as a matter of language) applied to Jesus Christ, of course, but not exclusively. As Daniel 4 shows it refers also to “Nebuchadnezzar” who was restored to his kingdom and in a sense to Hannah and the Virgin Mary in reference to how God dealt with them. Therefore one cannot say that the use of this term is proof that the context is a prophecy about Jesus.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

One footnote:

I’ve had some people contest that these verses deal with “the kingdom of mankind”—that is, *God’s rulership *over mankind—in a context of a message written to “all [people] who live” because of this passage from the chapter:

In order that all who live may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals (mankind).–Daniel 4:17, NRSV.

Being a message for “all who live,” they claim that the expression “the kingdom of mankind” in this verse is a clear indication that the chapter is a prophecy about God’s exercise of his Kingdom over humankind. Now there definitely is a message here for “all who live,” but it isn’t that “the kingdom of mankind” is one and the same as the Kingdom of God.

Instead the expression “the kingdom of mankind” refers to human sovereignty. Note the way the expression in Daniel 7:14 can also be rendered:

the Most High is sovereign over human kingship*–NABRE*

that the Most High dominates human kingship–Common English Bible

It refers to human rulership that can act and often does act independently of God’s sovereignty (as it did in the case of “Nebuchadnezzar”). The main point is that nothing of “the kingdom of mankind” is so great that God cannot change things. As noted by one famous scholar discussing the chapter:

Though men have kingdoms on earth, and multitudes subject to them, yet they are not absolute sovereigns; there is a God that is higher than they, at whose control they are, and does whatsoever he pleases in their kingdoms*.–Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible.*

The central theme of what happened to this Babylonian king in Daniel 4 is that “human kingship” is subject to God’s dominance over it. It is not saying that “the kingdom of mankind” is God’s rulership of God’s kingdom but instead that even human government is made subject to God’s sovereign rule.

Some may try to argue that this is an allusion to God’s kingdom, but that couldn’t be so since God’s kingdom is not the same as “human kingship.” In fact God is spoken of as overthrowing “human kingship” in Daniel 2:44:

In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever.

It should be noted that Daniel 2:44 is not the central theme of the book of Daniel either. The book was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people who were facing great persecution at the hands of Antichus IV Epiphanies who was trying to unify his kingdom by forcing Jews to abandon their culture. It is a collection of writings, not a single unit. Chapters 1-6 are stories taken from history composed in such a manner to create moral lessons that would be of practical use to the persecuted Jews of the second century B.C.E.

Chapters 7-12 is an entirely different collection, an apocalyptic library of visions foretelling deliverance for the Jews in days to come. And the Greek additions return to the edifying genre that the earlier chapters appear to employ.

 

[po18guy]

Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. in his excellent book Inside the Bible, provides a great insight. He points out that Daniel is both a prophetic, as well as an apocalyptic book. Since it is the only prophetic book to provide detailed information about a certain event, it is reasonably clear that it was written contemporaneously with that event - but presented as though it had been written much earlier. It details the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), a Seleucid king who brutally oppressed the Hebrews, and against whom the Maccabees revolted.

According to Fr. Baker, the ten horns are the ten Seleucid kings who tried to Hellenize the Jews. The little horn (mentioned last) is believed to be the last and most oppressive of them, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. For this reason, many scholars believe that Daniel was written about the time of the Maccabean revolt (165 BC +/-).

Your friend, privately interpreting scripture apart from the authority of the Church, is apparently either making things up, or repeating things that others have made up which fit an agenda.

 

[Waynec]

Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. in his excellent book Inside the Bible, provides a great insight. He points out that Daniel is both a prophetic, as well as an apocalyptic book. Since it is the only prophetic book to provide detailed information about a certain event, it is reasonably clear that it was written contemporaneously with that event - but presented as though it had been written much earlier. It details the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), a Seleucid king who brutally oppressed the Hebrews, and against whom the Maccabees revolted.

According to Fr. Baker, the ten horns are the ten Seleucid kings who tried to Hellenize the Jews. The little horn (mentioned last) is believed to be the last and most oppressive of them, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. For this reason, many scholars believe that Daniel was written about the time of the Maccabean revolt (165 BC +/-).

Your friend, privately interpreting scripture apart from the authority of the Church, is apparently either making things up, or repeating things that others have made up which fit an agenda.

Thanks. This sounds link an interesting book. I’ll have to look into it.

 

[Waynec]

Delson

Thanks for the posts. I found them very interesting and educating .

As usual another fine study. Thanks so much for responding. We all learn from your posts.
God Bless

 

[Todd977]

To be honest, when I read Daniel’s description of the tree being so large that the birds of the air nested in its branches (Dan 4:9), I couldn’t help but recall Jesus Christ’s parable of the mustard seed:
Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” (Mathew 13:31-32)

If you think of the kingdom of heaven on earth as subsisting in the Christian Church, which had a small beginning but “grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth,” and if you think of the “beasts of the field [which eventually] found shade under it, and the birds of the air [which eventually] dwelt in its branches” as bad, malevolent things, instead of innocent creatures, then I can see how you might look upon the vision in Daniel as a prophecy that, when the Church becomes large, it will also become corrupt and God will send his angel to cut it down to its stump and roots, a faithful remnant. I can also see how that faithful remnant might then have to endure seven years of tribulation. I would not be surprised if many would-be church reformers who break away from an established Church and start their own Churches misinterpret that portion of Daniel that way.

 

[Waynec]

To be honest, when I read Daniel’s description of the tree being so large that the birds of the air nested in its branches (Dan 4:9), I couldn’t help but recall Jesus Christ’s parable of the mustard seed:
Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” (Mathew 13:31-32)

If you think of the kingdom of heaven on earth as subsisting in the Christian Church, which had a small beginning but “grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth,” and if you think of the “beasts of the field [which eventually] found shade under it, and the birds of the air [which eventually] dwelt in its branches” as bad, malevolent things, instead of innocent creatures, then I can see how you might look upon the vision in Daniel as a prophecy that, when the Church becomes large, it will also become corrupt and God will send his angel to cut it down to its stump and roots, a faithful remnant. I can also see how that faithful remnant might then have to endure seven years of tribulation. I would not be surprised if many would-be church reformers who break away from an established Church and start their own Churches misinterpret that portion of Daniel that way.

I must say this is an interesting way of looking at this.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I must say this is an interesting way of looking at this.

Don’t forget, however, that Judaism does not count the Book of Daniel as a book of prophecy or Daniel as one of the prophets.

In the Hebrew Scriptures the Book of Daniel is included among Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים, “Writings”) such as the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc. It is not a part of the Nevi’im (נְבִיאִים‎, “Prophets”) such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, etc.

Judaism recognizes 55 prophets, and Daniel is not one of them.

While his writings include visions of the future, they are a narrative of “visions” or “dreams.” Daniel never receives actual oracles or proclamations of the Lord to declare aloud to the people like the other prophets do. The Jews believe that his visions were designed to be written down to teach lessons to future generations. Their reason for including it in the canon was to preserve these lessons among the “Writings,” and not keep the book because it was a collection of prophecies waiting for their fulfillment.

Besides if one claims that chapter 4 is a prophecy, then why isn’t chapter 3 a prophecy too or chapter 6 or 5? If this is supposed to be a book of prophecy, then aren’t all the chapters laden with some prophetic meaning? Why only chapter 4?

And then why claim something about the book that the Jews don’t claim? If the Jews are wrong about the book of Daniel, then why consider it a part of word of God in the first place? If we accept that it is part of the word of God because of its origin in Jewry, should we not accept that it is not intended to be a book of prophecy? And if somehow we still want to demand chapter 4 to be prophecy, then how does one justify these non-Jewish delineating definitions about Daniel and on what authority?

Can you hear what this person is proposing: “Chapter 4, though not a book not considered prophetic by the Jews, is nevertheless truly a prophecy with two fulfillments!”

If the Jews say it isn’t prophetic, then who does? Who gave these other persons such an authority?

And if it is prophetic, why only two (2) fulfillments? Why not more? Why more than one? If it is a prophecy for “all people,” then what keeps it from being fulfilled in various ways for each and every individual who is living now or has ever lived?

Just some more to think about.

 

[Waynec]

Don’t forget, however, that Judaism does not count the Book of Daniel as a book of prophecy or Daniel as one of the prophets.

Just some more to think about.

You always give me something to think about. Not only think but study and learn from.
Thanks and God Bless

 

[jbejon]

Hi,
I am in a conversation with a person that is telling me that the above scripture has 2 fulfillment’s.

It is about Daniel interpreting the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had you know about the 7 years eating grass and the tree stump with the bands around it.

I believe that it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar’s time and this person believes that it also had a later fulfillment.

What is the Catholic belief in regards to this?

Thanks

Hi WayneC.

Sorry–I’m clearly a bit late in coming to this thread! For what it’s worth, I don’t buy into the idea that Daniel was a late (2nd century BC) composition. I think you have it absolutely right when you say: it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar’s time.

Your interlocutor (who mentions two separate fulfilments) may well be a Jehovah’s Witness. They believe something odd about the 7 years somehow amounting to 2,520 years and ending in 1914. It all strikes me as very strange. If you google it, I’m sure a whole bunch of info will come up!

James.

 

[Waynec]

Hi WayneC.

Sorry–I’m clearly a bit late in coming to this thread! For what it’s worth, I don’t buy into the idea that Daniel was a late (2nd century BC) composition. I think you have it absolutely right when you say: it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar’s time.

Your interlocutor (who mentions two separate fulfilments) may well be a Jehovah’s Witness. They believe something odd about the 7 years somehow amounting to 2,520 years and ending in 1914. It all strikes me as very strange. If you google it, I’m sure a whole bunch of info will come up!

James.

You are right my friend is a JW. I know quite a lot about their beliefs but I wanted some (name removed by moderator)ut with out actually mentioning my friends “religion”

thanks

 

[jbejon]

No problem. I was just about to offer some advice on interacting with JWs, but it then occurred to me: I don’t think anything I’ve ever said to a Jehovah’s Witness has ever had any impact on them–at least not that I can tell. So I guess I’ll just leave you to it…

 

[Waynec]

No problem. I was just about to offer some advice on interacting with JWs, but it then occurred to me: I don’t think anything I’ve ever said to a Jehovah’s Witness has ever had any impact on them–at least not that I can tell. So I guess I’ll just leave you to it…

My experience is the same as yours.

By the way Welcome to the forums. There is a lot to learn here Some very bright and active posters.