Rushdoony on Daniel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
I am just starting Daniel and have only got as far as Daniel 1 in making notes etc... I am however very impressed with Rushdoony's setting the scene. He explains very well the challenge of Daniel - the view that history does not just "happen" but is in fact under the control of a sovereign God. It explains the time and effort of the conservative commentaries to date the book as 6th Century (BC). There are all sorts of anachronisms that date it as 6th Century which means Daniel was prophesying the future (preterist position?). This upsets many theologians who want a more liberal and retrospective view of prophecy.

Rushdoony also explains that it documents miracles - showing that there is divine intervention - not that "He has no hands but our hands" Think about His hand appearing to write on the wall! Think about His handwriting of the ten commandments.

(I wonder what a handwriting expert would make of the two tablets should they ever be redisciovered)

A more difficult challenge is outlined in the sense that religion in the ANE tended to be pragmatic. The truth of a religion was in the results. If you had success over another, then your god was stronger than theirs. Nebuchadnezzar took loot from the temple at Jerusalem to the house of his god. This should have expressed the preeminence of his god over the G-d of Abraham. "The rigidity of biblical faith becomes proof of a false rationalism and evidence of irreligion and biblical faith becomes despised, scorned and persecuted." p9

I think what Rushdoony is saying here is that unbelievers cannot understand biblical faith as rational. In their pragmatic world view, Daniel should have acknowledged the god of Neb. as preeminent.
 
What work are you specifically referring to?

I've read Thy Kingdom Come and was likewise impressed by some of the insight.
 
What work are you specifically referring to?

I've read Thy Kingdom Come and was likewise impressed by some of the insight.

It is a combined book on Daniel and Revelation. Thankfully it is divided into two commentaries just as the Esther/Ruth combination that I used last month. I will probably do a review on the simplified(?) review section, but it would only be on the first part of "Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation"
 
As I reflect on Daniel and the three ways it confronts us I am reminded of horoscopes. If they DO tell the future what is the point, they are innevitable. To be honest I have dismissed horoscopes from my mind but Daniel poses something of the same dilema for modern man. IF the future can be foretold what does that say about us? The fact that we struggle with it suggests that we do not truly understand His sovereignty. Not only does He have the whole world in His hands but history too. That makes my head hurt, we are not independent beings, as Paul said "In Him we move and have our being" that actually means something!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top