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.
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.