In chapter 2 of that remarkable book which bears his name, the prophet Daniel was chosen of God to interpret a dream for the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The dream involved a great image of four principal components; a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass and legs and feet of iron (the feet being partially clay). A stone, fashioned without hands, smote the image upon its feet and broke them in pieces. Eventually, the stone became a great mountain and filled the earth.
In his interpretation of the dream, Daniel noted that the image represented four empires. The head of gold was the Babylonian kingdom (2:37-38). After it another was to arise, which history reveals was the empire of the Medes and Persians (2:39; cf. 5:28). A third nation was to follow, that of the Greeks (2:39; cf. 8:20-21). Finally, a fourth kingdom would arise, symbolized by the legs and feet (2:40-41). It is very crucial to observe that only four empires are suggested by the image. The fourth (Roman) was to be partly strong and partly weak (legs of iron and feet of iron and clay) but it was the final kingdom of the dream and it signified but a single nation.
Well, of the time of the Roman empire, the prophet declared, "And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever" (2:44). Now it is a known historical fact that the Roman empire fell in 476 A.D. (though its weaknesses were discernible long before its demise). Accordingly, there are but three ways of viewing Daniel 2:44. First, the kingdom described is the church (Matthew 16:18-19) which was established during the days of the Roman empire (Luke 3:1). Second, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is the millennial kingdom which the Lord will set up at His return. Hence, there must be a literal resurrection of the kings of the old Roman empire prior to Christ's advent. Or finally, Daniel was a false prophet. Obviously, those who have respect for the integrity of the Bible will reject number three. It is equally clear however, that number two is also patently false.
In his book Until - The Coming of Messiah and His Kingdom, millennialist Robert Shank contends that the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is the Messiah's millennial reign which, he alleges, is to be set up in the not-too-distant future of our own generation (p. 316). But how could such a theory be harmonized with the plain historical fact that the Roman empire has been buried in the dust of oblivion for more than fifteen centuries?! Here is how the magic is performed. Shank claims that the "ten toes" of that great metallic image represent a "federation" of ten nations that are "fragments" of the old Roman kingdom. The nations are not necessarily to be literally resurrected, "but more especially nations which are the ideological and cultural heirs of the empire" (p. 113).
The theory is seriously flawed at several places. First, the indications of Daniel 2 are that God's kingdom is of a different nature than the political kingdoms with which it is contrasted. The heavenly kingdom, "cut out of the mountain without hands" (note how a similar expression is employed to stress the spiritual essence of the resurrected body in II Corinthians 5:1) was to be spiritual in nature (cf. John 6:15; 18:36; Luke 17:21). Second, Daniel's prophecy does not speak of the kingdom being established during the time of ten "nations" (plural) but rather, during the time of the "fourth kingdom" (singular, note the "it" in 2:40-41). Third, there is absolutely no indication that the "ten toes" of the image represent anything. They are not even mentioned! Perhaps the millennial advocates can tell us what the "ten fingers" of the two arms symbolize! Fourth, the Bible declares that God's kingdom would be set up, "in the days of those kings;" not merely in a time when their, "ideological and cultural heirs" would exercise influence. Such is a woeful mishandling of the Biblical text. Finally, it is quite clear that the "kingdom" of 2:44 was one that would stand forever, not merely for one thousand years! The pre-millennial concept of Daniel 2:44 is false!
Christ on David's Throne
In II Samuel 7:12-13, the prophet Nathan informed king David, "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." There is no question but that this prophecy ultimately refers to Christ (cf. Hebrews 1:5). The question is though, does it allude to the establishment of the Lord's spiritual kingdom, the church, and His enthronement at the right hand of God after His ascension, or does it denote an earthly, political regime wherein Christ reigns upon David's throne from Jerusalem? Erroneously, the millennialists contend the latter.
The truth of the matter is, II Samuel 7:12-13 simply cannot be forced into the mold of pre-millennial eschatology. Note: pre-millennialism alleges that when Christ returns to the earth, He will first raise all of the righteous dead (including David) and then, subsequent thereto, He will sit down to rule upon David's throne. This passage however, declares that the Lord will receive the throne and the kingdom while David is still asleep with his fathers. This is too soon for the pre-millennialists! Robert Shank makes a pitifully feeble response to this argument. "The passage affirms that the Messiah will reign on David's throne. But it does not require that he reign on David's throne while David remains in the grave. All that is required with respect to time to that David's Seed be 'set up' while David sleeps in his grave" (p. 33). That is amazing! The divine text says, ...you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you...and I will establish his kingdom..." By what rule of exegesis is it determined that the seed is to be "set up" while David sleeps in the grave but the kingdom will be established after he awakes, when the verbals are joined with the coordinating "and?" Shank would squeeze two thousand years into the comma between "body" and "and" in 2:12!
One of the problems of the millennialists is that they just will not let the New Testament be the interpreter of Old Testament prophecy. They have their own eschatological scheme mentally set and the Bible must be made to harmonize with that. The New Testament makes it quite plain that Jesus became heir to David's throne when He ascended to the Father's right hand.
The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she would bear the Christ child and that unto Him would be given, "the throne of His father David." He would, "reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). But when was this promise to be fulfilled? The pre-millennialists contend that it has not yet been fulfilled but its accomplishment awaits the return of Christ to the earth. The apostle Peter however, did not so view the matter. He declares in Acts 2:30ff that God had sworn with an oath that of the fruit of David's loins would one be appointed to sit on David's throne. Having foreseen such (the enthronement of our Lord), David spoke of the Savior's resurrection (cf. Psalm 16:8ff). Unless one is totally blinded by a preconceived theory, he could scarcely fail to see the chronological connection between the Lord's resurrection and His exaltation to David's throne. In fact, after affirming Christ's resurrection, the apostle says, "Being therefore, by the right hand of God exalted..." (2:33). Well, what was He doing at the right hand of God? Sitting (v. 34)! Was He sitting where He had been raised "to sit" (v. 30)? Yes! Where was that? On David's throne! Now what about that is so difficult to see?
A further point for consideration of this matter is this. In connection with his argument that Jesus was exalted to David's throne at the right hand of God, Peter quotes Psalm 110. "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" This great psalm, as every serious student knows, speaks of Christ's dual roles of king and priest which, as the prophet Zechariah observes, were to be filled simultaneously (6:12-13). Now Robert Shank admits that the Lord was raised from the dead for the purpose of sitting on David's throne but he contends that the, "assumption of (Christ to) the throne of David need not immediately follow His resurrection" (p. 33). He alleges that the Savior's occupation of that throne has been delayed two thousand years! Well, if that is the case, then Christ's function as priest has also been delayed for two millennia and we are without remission of sins!
There is another passage that we should study in this connection. In Isaiah 55:3, the prophet foretold of the coming of an, "everlasting covenant" which is described as, "the sure mercies of David." This is an obvious allusion to the promise made to David in II Samuel 7:12-13 and Psalm 89:3-4. Though pre-millennialists misapply these prophecies to that alleged yet future, political kingdom on earth (Shank, p. 84), the inspired Paul in Acts 13:32 and following, shows that God, "has fulfilled" (the perfect tense reveals that the fulfillment had already been accomplished and the results were continuing) the, "good tidings of the promise made unto our fathers" which included the, "holy and sure blessings of David." This had been accomplished by the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent proclamation of remission of sins in His name. F. F. Bruce says, "Paul regards the resurrection of Christ as the fulfillment of the 'sure mercies' or 'holy and sure blessings' promised to David" (The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, p. 270). Again, the question is paramount. Will we let inspired New Testament spokesmen interpret the Old Testament prophecies for us?
The truth of the matter is, II Samuel 7:12-13 simply cannot be forced into the mold of pre-millennial eschatology. Note: pre-millennialism alleges that when Christ returns to the earth, He will first raise all of the righteous dead (including David) and then, subsequent thereto, He will sit down to rule upon David's throne. This passage however, declares that the Lord will receive the throne and the kingdom while David is still asleep with his fathers. This is too soon for the pre-millennialists! Robert Shank makes a pitifully feeble response to this argument. "The passage affirms that the Messiah will reign on David's throne. But it does not require that he reign on David's throne while David remains in the grave. All that is required with respect to time to that David's Seed be 'set up' while David sleeps in his grave" (p. 33). That is amazing! The divine text says, ...you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you...and I will establish his kingdom..." By what rule of exegesis is it determined that the seed is to be "set up" while David sleeps in the grave but the kingdom will be established after he awakes, when the verbals are joined with the coordinating "and?" Shank would squeeze two thousand years into the comma between "body" and "and" in 2:12!
One of the problems of the millennialists is that they just will not let the New Testament be the interpreter of Old Testament prophecy. They have their own eschatological scheme mentally set and the Bible must be made to harmonize with that. The New Testament makes it quite plain that Jesus became heir to David's throne when He ascended to the Father's right hand.
The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she would bear the Christ child and that unto Him would be given, "the throne of His father David." He would, "reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). But when was this promise to be fulfilled? The pre-millennialists contend that it has not yet been fulfilled but its accomplishment awaits the return of Christ to the earth. The apostle Peter however, did not so view the matter. He declares in Acts 2:30ff that God had sworn with an oath that of the fruit of David's loins would one be appointed to sit on David's throne. Having foreseen such (the enthronement of our Lord), David spoke of the Savior's resurrection (cf. Psalm 16:8ff). Unless one is totally blinded by a preconceived theory, he could scarcely fail to see the chronological connection between the Lord's resurrection and His exaltation to David's throne. In fact, after affirming Christ's resurrection, the apostle says, "Being therefore, by the right hand of God exalted..." (2:33). Well, what was He doing at the right hand of God? Sitting (v. 34)! Was He sitting where He had been raised "to sit" (v. 30)? Yes! Where was that? On David's throne! Now what about that is so difficult to see?
A further point for consideration of this matter is this. In connection with his argument that Jesus was exalted to David's throne at the right hand of God, Peter quotes Psalm 110. "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" This great psalm, as every serious student knows, speaks of Christ's dual roles of king and priest which, as the prophet Zechariah observes, were to be filled simultaneously (6:12-13). Now Robert Shank admits that the Lord was raised from the dead for the purpose of sitting on David's throne but he contends that the, "assumption of (Christ to) the throne of David need not immediately follow His resurrection" (p. 33). He alleges that the Savior's occupation of that throne has been delayed two thousand years! Well, if that is the case, then Christ's function as priest has also been delayed for two millennia and we are without remission of sins!
There is another passage that we should study in this connection. In Isaiah 55:3, the prophet foretold of the coming of an, "everlasting covenant" which is described as, "the sure mercies of David." This is an obvious allusion to the promise made to David in II Samuel 7:12-13 and Psalm 89:3-4. Though pre-millennialists misapply these prophecies to that alleged yet future, political kingdom on earth (Shank, p. 84), the inspired Paul in Acts 13:32 and following, shows that God, "has fulfilled" (the perfect tense reveals that the fulfillment had already been accomplished and the results were continuing) the, "good tidings of the promise made unto our fathers" which included the, "holy and sure blessings of David." This had been accomplished by the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent proclamation of remission of sins in His name. F. F. Bruce says, "Paul regards the resurrection of Christ as the fulfillment of the 'sure mercies' or 'holy and sure blessings' promised to David" (The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, p. 270). Again, the question is paramount. Will we let inspired New Testament spokesmen interpret the Old Testament prophecies for us?
No comments:
Post a Comment