« Xerox and Erasable Paper | Main | Elliot Spitzer's New Suit »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160bd69e200d8350a217369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar, and 1914:

Comments

luis

It did indeed befall Nebuchadnezzar, and history alludes to a period of royal insanity. But the dream’s real significance doesn’t lie in Nebuchadnezzar’s own reign. It lies in the reign he interrupted.

Where in the bible contradicts, Daniels interpretation of that same dream? Why not let the bible guide you to a belief instead of you forcing it to your belief!!

tom sheepandgoats

Luis, thanks for your comment.

I didn't really understand your 2nd paragraph. If you clarify, I will respond.

The Wise Fool

You may want to take another look at Daniel 4:17 and Daniel 4:22 in the Lexicon:

http://biblelexicon.org/daniel/4-17.htm

http://biblelexicon.org/daniel/4-22.htm

I think what Luis was trying to make the objection is that Daniel 4:20-22 explicitly claims that the tree is Nebuchadnezzar. "That is the real tree..."

"...[God] gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.” That’s too lofty a purpose to be squandered on a tyrant..."

The verse is just saying that God puts whoever He wants to put in charge. This is what Romans 13:1-5 would later echo in a different manner.

Furthermore, Daniel 4:28 says that all of this happened to Nebuchadnezzar. As much as you could claim Jesus was humble and lowly, He never ate grass like cattle (Daniel 4:25), which would be pretty lowly indeed.

I do not think that it is wise to ignore what the Bible actually says to give it another meaning which you like better, but that's just me.

tom sheepandgoats

I admit to an air of "solving a puzzle" here, but there are enough buzzwords and "buzzconcepts" in the dream to make an examination of it irresistible to the serious Bible student, who discerns the meaning of words, phrases, and doings by examining how the same word, phrase or doing is used elsewhere in the scriptures. JWs approach Bible study with the underpinning notion that the verses therein are not a hodgepodge of disjointed thoughts but are placed there with a purpose. This view is not at all shared by most critics, who thereby miss the Bible's import.

God's sovereignty as expressed toward mankind is a key Bible theme. Several threads of it enticingly intersect in this dream of Nebuchadnezzar's. On the purely physical level is a several hundred year old line of earthly kings that begins with David and ends with Zedekiah. It ends at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the recipient of the dream. Often foreign kings are described as agents of God to chastise his people; this is true of no one more than Nebuchadnezzar. There is also the Jewish expectation of a messiah who would reestablish that line, and drive out foreign powers. In the first century CE, that meant the Romans.

Then there is a greater fulfillment of God's rulership over mankind, something merely hinted at by that line of Davidic kings. There is, in Jesus, a messiah who, when his rule would commence, would result in God's will being done “on earth, as it is in heaven.” Apparently, God's purpose in providing a messiah is to do more than simply re-establish a political nation.

There is the dream's stated purpose of people knowing the Most High puts over the “kingdom of mankind”....certainly a term more embracing than just Israel of that day...whoever he chooses. Surely this somehow coincides with God's purpose of bringing righteous rule to earth by means of his son. In the dream, God hands that kingdom to the lowliest of mankind.....sure, that finds initial fulfillment with Nebuchadnezzar, who was brought low.....but there is also Jesus, to whom God will ultimately hand the kingdom of mankind. He is also lowly, unforgivably lowly in the eyes of those expecting a Roman vanquishing messiah, a king riding into town on an ass's colt, a king not resisting as he is led to slaughter. Moreover, though born of David's line, and thus having legal right to rule, he is born into neither power, wealth, nor priviledge.

When the dream is given, to whom it is given, the stated purpose of the dream....students of the Bible 'smell' key biblical concepts swirling around in this dream and they strive to connect the dots. It's all silly nonsense to the critics, but it's irresistibly enticing to those who care about seeing God's will come about on earth, as in heaven. They throw themselves into it. They are like Dr Richard Kimble, affirming to Tommy Lee Jones:

“Do you remember when I said I didn't kill my wife and you said you didn't care?

“Yeah, yeah” answers Tommy, “I'm not here to solve puzzles.”

“Well I am,” Kimble responds. “And I just found a big piece.”

That's how Jehovah's Witnesses feel about this dream. It's a big piece to the overall picture of God's sovereignty. But, like Tommy, not everyone cares. To them, the dream is just another haphazard fable in the Bible. We think it's there for a purpose.

Buttressing our confidence is the fact that the interpretation we offer resulted in accurately foretold events, as the New York World article attests. As you know, critics common charge that Bible prophesy is merely history written after the fact. Plainly that is not the case here.

The Wise Fool

One of the things I really respect about the JW's is that they tend to spend some time studying the Bible. So I think that is great, and I think it is even fair to look for relations across the Scripture. For the sake of the argument, I even would be happy to say that this passage of Daniel was placed there for a purpose. However, I do not think it needs to be stitched together into other passages to communicate that purpose, and furthermore doing so is hazardous and can cast suspicion on you when those ties do not seem correct. You do not want to veer off into making connections which do not actually exist, like John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (as long as we are using movie references).

The World's article's headline is the "End of All Kingdoms in 1914," yet not all kingdoms ended then. For example, the kingdom (sultanate) of Oman continued through 1914 unscathed, and continues to this day.

The text in the magazine which you quote says that JW's "have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914." Now, if you would be so kind, please point to the prophesy which says that the Day of Wrath would be anything like WWI. I can tell you that there are many prophesies in the OT regarding the Day of Wrath, and I can't seem to jam them into WWI, nor use them to explain how the world continues for nearly 100 years now in similar circumstances, knowing times of peace and times of war, going through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the baby boom, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the technological revolution, the near elimination of small pox (and very close to eradicating polio), making it to the moon, an international space station, etc., etc.

The JW prophesy was that 1914 marked the end, the end(!), of the time of the Gentiles. (Reference N.H. Barbour & C. T. Russell, The Three Worlds, 1877, page 67.) As in, the JW prophesy was made in reference to Luke 21:24:

They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. NIV

Now maybe you think that I just have a misunderstanding, and that God really meant decades upon decades of intermittent wrath interspersed with great accomplishments as opposed to a "Day of Wrath." That is OK. I just thought you might want to know what the view was of someone looking from the outside in was, because from the outside, it does not add up.

tom sheepandgoats

I see that taking you on cinematographically is no less challenging than doing so biblically.

We do indeed study, stitch and analyze Daniel 4, and not Daniel 4 only, but all the rest of the book. In fact, really, all the rest of the Bible, we have interpretations on most of it. We re-examine and readjust them from time to time, usually with just a bit of tweaking, but sometimes significantly. Any such adjustments provoke howls from religious grousers....you'll see them a lot on the internet...who portray it as “flip-flopping.” But surely they are from the Tebow school of faith, who expect discernment to be delivered, as if by Santa with toys, as complete revelations with no assembly required.

The World magazine was a secular magazine, it wasn't ours. It was a bit like today's New York Times magazine, and I include it just for historical context. Even today, when we routinely read of unspeakable atrocities and say “been there, done that,” WWI still ranks as a big event. At the time, it was much more so, the first time in history that the whole world (except for Oman) was at war at the same time. It made enough impression on the editors that they linked it with JW proclamations about the end of the Gentile times in 1914. They made the connection, we didn't. Nevertheless, most of our people did think the end of the Gentile times would be the end of human rule on earth, but when 1915 came we stopped thinking that way. (a flip-flop)

We've puzzled out, we think, that the “times of the Gentiles” are those times that God's sovereignty has had no direct representation on earth. It did until the fall of the Davidic line of king at Nebuchadnezzar's hand, it did with the coming of Christ to kingdom power in heaven in 1914, but the time in between are the “times of the Gentiles.” Now, I freely admit it sounds silly to link a specific year with the fulfillment of events in heaven, as we have with 1914, but we've held that position for a long time, drawing upon both prophesies (such as the Dan 4 dream) and current historical events. I attempted to draw some analogies here, if you're interested.

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2006/12/senate_balance_.html

You point to undeniable advances in technology and health. Since they are undeniable, I won't deny them. Why would I want to? Yet, is there not great irony in....I mean, with all of the highly educated, proficient people around, you'd almost think they'd be able to get together to curb self-destructive tendencies that threaten to tank the entire planet. Answering one secular humanist blogger who asked “Why do you want to think that everything's getting worse and worse? What is it about that view that does it for you?” I answered, “It helps me to explain why the doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight and not 10AM. It helps me to explain why Newsweek runs a cover story: "Apocalypse Now.....What The @#$! is Next?" It helps me to explain why Economist runs the cover story "World on the Edge." It helps me to explain why top finance people can crash the entire worldwide economy, bringing misery to millions, if not billions of people, without anyone at all held accountable.”

With regard to rulership, our central premise is that man is not capable of ruling himself. And that, once an experiment in human self-rule has run it's course, God's sovereignty will be re-established over the earth, as was meant to be from way back in Eden days. And that the beginnings of that heavenly government have already been established, as described above.

The Wise Fool

Well, thanks for the discussion, Tom.

I've got other disagreements with what you've put up here, such as about a doomsday clock, but maybe we'll tackle that at a different time. ;-)

I do have a couple closing questions for you which I would love to see your opinion on:

With the metaphorical clock in the region of 5 minutes until midnight, are you more accepting of what is happening around you, less accepting of it, or indifferent to it altogether, and why?

If you have another post which already has the answer, feel free to point me there. Or if you want to turn the answer into a post, I am cool with that too. Or, if instead, you can answer that pretty quickly, a simple reply here would be great as well.

tom sheepandgoats

Sorry, WF, but I don't understand the question. Are you asking do I agree with their assessment? Or how their assessment affects my daily life? Or something else?

The doomsday clock is an assessment from experts in the field. Is the situation really as dire as they say? Somewhat like global warming, it's accepted by some, pooh-poohed by others. My own opinion, not having any especial expertise, is immaterial. But it would be much nicer if conditions were such that no one ever dreamed of setting a doomsday clock or warning of an overcooked earth.

I don't have a pre-made post on the doomsday clock, per se, but it's addressed here in a roundabout way:

http://tinyurl.com/7fkbszp

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

My Photo
Blog powered by TypePad