Somewhere-in-betweenism
|
[This post was created from a comment (#3514) in the Post-eschatology and 2nd century church identity - clarification sought… thread.] I’ll set out how I see it, roughly. According to Daniel’s prophetic narrative, as the climax to a period of wrath against Israel a pagan force invades Judea, making war against the righteous in Israel, corrupting worship of the true God, acting blasphemously, and imposing Hellenistic values and practices on Jerusalem. Some in Israel advocate a covenant with the Gentile intruders; others resist, remaining faithful to the covenant at the cost of great suffering. At the end of this period of unprecedented affliction Israel will be delivered. Daniel 7 encapsulates in symbolic form the judgment that lies at the heart of this deliverance: the oppressor is judged and destroyed, and the kingdom is given to the suffering saints of the Most High, represented by the figure of one like a son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. The oppressor seduces many in Israel, who become, therefore, equally wicked; and the time of deliverance is also a time of devastation for the Israel - the culmination of God’s judgment against a rebellious nation. But the central act of judgment in the tableau is against the pagan power, the fourth beast, and the king who ‘shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods’ (Dan. 11:36). The New Testament, of course, is not solely dependent on this narrative. There is also, as you mention, the general Old Testament pattern of judgment on Israel followed by judgment on the enemies of Israel that appears in various shapes and colours in the Psalms and Prophets in particular. But I believe that the Son of man motif (and the larger narrative in Daniel 8-12 that it encapsulates) was critical to how Jesus and the apocalyptic tradition that developed from him constructed a vision of hope for the future. The narrative makes sense of the connection between the war against the Jews and judgment on the persecutor of the people of God, between judgment on Israel and judgment on Rome. Your argument that the connection no longer applies once the old covenant has been nullified is interesting and worth thinking about further; but the theme of retribution, of judgment on the persecutors, is clearly there in the New Testament. If Jesus identifies himself the Son of man in Daniel’s vision, it seems very unlikely that he would have overlooked the fact that before the Son of man is given the kingdom, the pagan enemy is destroyed. Paul says that wrath comes first on Israel, then on the Greeks; he writes in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 that God considers it just to ‘repay with affliction those who afflict you’; Revelation, to my mind, predicts judgment on Rome as the enemy of the people of God. We have frequent allusions to Psalms 2 and 110, both of which speak of a king who defeats his enemies. And as I have suggested, the Apostolic Fathers spoke of imminent judgment on the world and deliverance of the suffering community of believers. The reason, I think, the connection doesn’t get dropped is that judgment on the enemy entails an end to the suffering and a vindication of the faithfulness of the followers of Jesus: judgment historically makes space for the renewed people to emerge and enjoy their new life in the Spirit. I said in the book that we have to be very careful interpreting prophecy on the basis of hindsight (COSM 4). There is no reason to think that prophecies about a ‘first resurrection’ of the martyrs were given with a clear and detailed sense of how such an event would fit into the programme of history. The prophecies present a few fundamental convictions: that evil would not triumph, that the blasphemous and hostile ideology of Roman imperialism would be overthrown, that the suffering would come to an end, that those who suffered would not be abandoned to death but would be crowned with glory, and so on. |
Comments
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
Andrew - The difference between Daniel’s narrative and the Jesus narrative is not between a vindication of national and believing Israel; Daniel does point to a vindication of a believing remnant only. The difference is in the way the outcome of Daniel’s narrative was perceived by Israel and Jesus. The one saw a national, ethnic outcome, also characterised by preservation of the key symbols of Israel’s identity. The other saw a dissolution of the key symbols and boundary markers.
A problem with your interpretation is that it was unbelieving Israel which suffered extreme tribulation in AD 70; faithful Israel was at that time removed from it, as far as they left Jerusalem before its fall. It was those fighting for Israel’s national preservation who suffered tribulation in extremity. The vindication which was given to faithful Israel came through means other than the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple - again, I would argue, in the first place with the gift of the Spirit attendant on belief in and obedience to Jesus, through the evangelion of his victory proclaimed at Pentecost. This preceded the full and final vindication to be given at Jesus’s return and final judgement.
I agree that the narrative of Jesus provides a paradigm of victory through faithful perseverance in suffering for Jesus’s followers. But as an exclusive interpretation it is too limited a view of the whole narrative.
You make the case about apocalyptic language very well in COSM. (The pages you refer to are heavily annotated by me!) My question, however, would be: to which event does the apocalyptic language of Mark 13:26-27 actually apply? The context points to the destruction of the temple. But in terms of the narrative as it unfolded, it applies much more appropriately to the ascension/outpoured Spirit of Jesus at Pentecost, and the visible future return of Christ yet to come. Both these events have the advantage of fulfilling some of the literal detail of the passage, and the one occurs at the beginning of the establishment of the Christian community - but also prefiguring its end.
A weakness in applying the passage in question to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 is that none of the authors of the four 1st century contemporary Christian writings, who would be primary beneficiaries of such an event as well as primary participants in the narrative, record such an association. (DeMar’s attempt to prove that they do only underlines how little evidence there is for such a view). It might also be questioned whether a late 1st century apostolic father could be referring to a judgement on Rome which happened in the late fifth century as an ‘imminent end’.
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
Hi guys,
Sorry to cut in on the debate (or the dance as Andrew calls it!).
Isn’t the point of the Daniel narrative, as used by Jesus, that ‘true’ Israel will ‘overcome’ suffering, defeat her enemies and receive God’s approval/vindication and the kingdom?
As Messiah (the representative of ‘true’ Israel) this is an experience that Jesus will (from the perspective of the Oliviet discourse) enact ‘par excellence’ (and in doing so defeat the greater ‘enemy’ of Sin/Evil and Death), but is also an experience which the Messiah-people will also ‘enact’ (hence the warnings of ‘being handed over to councils’ and ‘being put to death’ etc…).
Thus the ‘judgement on Jerusalem’ occurs because she (as apostate Israel, joining all the other apostate systems/nations=paganism) ‘embodies’ the ‘beast’ as the enemy of ‘true Israel’. This judgement isn’t JUST because of her rejection of Jesus (imagine a hypothetical situation where, following Jesus’ death, the nation repented and turned to Messiah….), but because this rejection flowed against the Messiah-people (as Jesus predicted it would) and the system increasingly brought down judgement upon itself (like an ever increasingly ‘vicious circle’). As the decades post-pentecost unrolled the Jerusalem-system became increasingly ‘pagan’ in her methods and ideology.
In the run up to AD70 I thus see the primary ‘enemy’ of the church being the apostate nation of Israel (cf comments about the ‘synagogue of Satan’ in Revelation etc..), an enemy that DID receive condemnation within the events of AD70, but (and this is my key point) by which time the ‘church’ was engaging on the wider world stage of Roman Imperialism and was experiencing the ‘beast’ at a different level….
I think if one tries to put too much eschatology on the events of AD70 then it falls down simply because the witness of the post-apostolic church is that ‘eschatology’ has now ‘moved on’ and has found it’s reference point in and against pagan Rome.
In this way I see the gospel narrative accounts - along with the Jewish apocalyptic focus, which has ‘apostate Jerusalem’ in mind - as ‘paradigmatic’ for Messianic eschatology. We take our impulse and direction from the historical focus and events of 1st century palestine, but allow this ‘fulfillment’ to overflow into the ‘eschatological context’ that we face today. This follows the ‘5 act hermeneutic’ that Tom Wright espouses.
One question: Did Rome receive ‘judgement’?? Surely Constantine/Byzantium/Western church demonstrates a ‘vindication’ of the people over and against the (formerly) pagan institutes of Rome? I would actually say that Rome experienced ‘transformation’ (which is as much a ‘vindication’ as condemnation!).
Richard
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
In the run up to AD70 I thus see the primary ‘enemy’ of the church being the apostate nation of Israel (cf comments about the ‘synagogue of Satan’ in Revelation etc..), an enemy that DID receive condemnation within the events of AD70, but (and this is my key point) by which time the ‘church’ was engaging on the wider world stage of Roman Imperialism and was experiencing the ‘beast’ at a different level….
What reasons would you give in support of the positive identification of apostate Israel with the beast? I agree that AD 70 marked judgment on Jerusalem and in some sense a vindication of the Son of man, but is there any more direct basis for the view that Israel was conceived - symbolically or actually - as the beast that is destroyed in Daniel 7?
It seems to me that we can make better sense of the movement from judgment on Jerusalem to judgment on Rome if we think narratively rather than iteratively - by which I mean simply repeating the paradigm in a broader context. In Daniel’s story there is a very important complicity between the invading pagan force and the unrighteous in Israel, who forsake the covenant with YHWH. The ‘beast’ remains a pagan imperial power, but it has subverted a section of Israel, which then becomes its ally and therefore also an enemy of the saints of the Most High.
This has implications for how we view the situation of the church today. Assuming I understand you correctly, you have outlined an iterative model: “We take our impulse and direction from the historical focus and events of 1st century palestine, but allow this ‘fulfillment’ to overflow into the ‘eschatological context’ that we face today.” So the suffering and vindication of Jesus is repeated first in the suffering and vindication of the early church (the ‘Messiah-people’) and secondly in the experience of the church after the parousia boundary of judgment on Rome - in other words, in the experience of the church today. Something like this perhaps - though I have a real aversion to ‘salvation-history’ diagrams:
What I have argued for is a transitional model that regards the eschatological crisis described in the New Testament as a unique transition culminating in the defeat of the supreme political-religious enemy and the giving of the kingdom to the Son of man and the suffering community that is in him. During the crisis the suffering community reiterates the story of Christ’s suffering and vindication. But once we move beyond that crisis (hence ‘post-echatological’, though this is a misleading term) we are back to being the people of God in the midst of the nations, a royal priesthood for the world, but we are a people under Christ as Lord, with a different redemption narrative to tell, and with God present in us by his Spirit. Although there will be isolated and sporadic periods of persecution, we no longer repeat the Son of man motif because the kingdom has come, God’s reign over his people in Christ has come about. The end described in Revelation 20:11 - 22:5 is very different to the ‘end’ described in the parousia texts. So we have instead:
Somehow I doubt this has brought as much clarity as I hoped, but it looks pretty.
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
Andrew,
Firstly, thank you for taking such effort and time helping me to think these issues through. I really do appreciate it!
Re: your comment about identifying ‘apostate Israel’ with the concept of ‘beast’ (as Daniel 7 imagines it), you said:
In Daniel’s story there is a very important complicity between the invading pagan force and the unrighteous in Israel, who forsake the covenant with YHWH. The ‘beast’ remains a pagan imperial power, but it has subverted a section of Israel, which then becomes its ally and therefore also an enemy of the saints of the Most High.
I partly agree with this statement but would add that it is in becoming ‘like’ the pagan nations that apostate Israel picks up the designation of ‘beast’. From this we see that the designation ‘pagan’ isn’t confined to just ‘ethnic/cultural’ grounds, but speaks - instead - of the deeper realities of ignorance of the purpose and nature of God.
From a reading of Revelation 13 it is interesting to see that this chapter contains 2 beasts. The first is a sort of conflation of all 4 of the Danielic beasts (lion+leopard+bear+10 horns) and the second is interestingly described as having 2 horns ‘like’ a Lamb.
I know that with Revelation nothing is clear (!) but I have been increasingly interested in the parallels between the ‘true’ people of God and the ‘unfaithful’ people of God (the whore vs the bride, the ‘false’ lamb vs the ‘true’ lamb) and am starting to read Revelation as internally containing a critique of apostate Israel even if the greater pagan powers of Rome et al are also in the background. If this is true then perhaps contained within Jesus’ use of Daniel (and thus contained within the Jesus-communities use of Daniel) is the concept that (ironically!) Israel has, herself, become the pagan-oppressor of the true people of God! (‘ignorant of the plan of God (=pagan), she sought to establish ‘justice’ off her own back’ (as all pagan superpowers are wont to do) - my paraphrase of Romans 10:3!).
The OT language for such oppressors would be ‘Babylon’ and ‘Egypt’ (clearly from the OT narrative history of Israel) and I wonder to what extent these appellations are turned against Israel herself within the NT community?
As I said before, the writer of Revelation is very happy to define some Jews as belonging to the ‘synagogue of Satan’ (c.f. Jesus’ comments about the ‘father’ of his Jewish opposition NOT being Abraham but Satan…John 8:39-47). If this isn’t a reversal of the ‘standard’ narrative story of Israel then I don’t know what is!
Also when Jesus is brought before Caiaphas we have this:
And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
I remember Tom Wright suggesting that in saying this Jesus is making the point that Caiaphas (far from seeing Jesus floating past his ‘office’ one day) would see Jesus vindicated over and against him. From the Daniel 7 context this would be casting Caiaphas in the role of ‘chief beast’! No wonder he got agitated!
Finally, thanks for doing those diagrams. I guess my position would be slightly different from your first diagram, in that I really don’t see Rome has having been ‘judged’ as a pagan oppressor in quite the definitive way you illustrate it.
Instead, I think I continue to see the ‘narrative’ of judgement against Israel/Jerusalem as containing a paradigmatic reality which is repeated again and again as the people of God engage with the ‘powers of this world’ and stand over and against them with the message of Jesus’ Lordship and his authority to transform corrupt systems. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that doing this (in such places like Iran, North Korea etc…) would soon involve some serious suffering, but suffering over which Daniel 7 (as well as Revelation as the ‘Christian’ reinterpretation of this apocalyptic) speaks of vindication and establishment of the Kingdom of God despite ‘pagan’ oppression.
Hope this makes sense!
Richard
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
I’m intrigued at the thought that “the lamb” of Revelation 13:11 might be identified with apostate Israel. Other associations of the lamb - eg the futurist, with the apostate church - might suggest that multiple interpretations are valid, and inherent to apocalyptic genre.
Pursuing the idea of apostate Israel’s identification with the pagan powers: Jerusalem is called “Egypt” in Revelation 11:8, and Jerusalem, like Babylon, is called “the great city” in the same verse (cp 18:10, 16, 19, 21). This has led some to see Revelation 17 as describing Jerusalem/Israel - she is the ‘harlot’ (Hosea, Ezekiel etc), etc. Overlap? If not exclusive identification?
Also, and I realise this may be stretching things a bit, I have a personal copyright on an interpretation of Romans 9, in which Pharaoh is analogous to Israel - he is hardened, but through his hardening, God’s glory is revealed (cp Israel’s ‘hardening’ and the fulfilment of God’s purposes in Romans 11:25-26, and more generally - God’s purposes fulfilled through Israel’s rejection of her messiah).
OK this is bringing some diverse texts and contexts together - but I think, in Romans in particular, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that Paul’s rhetorical shorthand should sketch Israel’s apostasy as placing her alongside her mythical bête noir. Such a development would have worked well within his theological and rhetorical framework, and of course, it amplifies the echoes of the same in Revelation.
There is of course no direct association of the lamb with any of the Daniel 7 beasts, nor, in this particular reading, with the ram of Daniel 8 and its two horns - but there may be an indirect, distant connection with the latter as a symbol of the ferocity of pagan powers.
A contrast is implied, however, between the outer ‘gentleness’ of the lamb and its inner ferocity in Revelation 13:11. And just to go into exegetical overdrive - what about the ‘sheep and the goats’ of Matthew 25:32-33? (They look the same, but have completely different natures). And the goat of Daniel 8:5 - no, this is going off into hyper-space.
The application of Revelation to subsequent contexts throughout history may be part of the apocalyptist’s purpose - in tandem with a primary 1st century reference, and even a future end-of-time reference. The very nature of apocalypse as a genre incorporates some uncertainty and speculation, so this kind of discussion, with some exegetical controls, seems to me entirely within the boundaries of the apocalyptist’s intention.
Just to comment on Revelation from the viewpoint of historically contextualised narrative: the meaning of the 1st century narrative was only understood in retrospect anyway - first by the disciples and the early 1st century church. It was a narrative inherently designed to be understood retrospectively - that’s partly why the disciples just didn’t get it in the gospels. This doesn’t invalidate an attempt to get inside the story from a 1st century viewpoint - I just think it’s possible and necessary to do both.
Do any of these readings qualify for the ‘most outrageous interpretation of Revelation of the year’ award?
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
Hi Andrew & Peter,
I’m in a bit of a rush so don’t have the time that I would like to develop my ideas further, but….
Central to my understanding of Paul in Romans is his nuanced view about what constitutes a ‘true Jew’.
I don’t know how to add diagrams to my text, so I’ll try my best to describe what I am ‘seeing’!
I imagine two circles each intersecting.
The ‘first’ circle would constitute the ‘ethnoi’ i.e. the pagan nations which are ‘without God and Torah’.
The ‘second’ circle would constitute the ‘judaioi’ i.e. the ‘people of God’ who have ‘Torah’ and the ‘promises’ etc…
Imagine at the centre of the 1st circle a ‘focus point’ which one could label ‘evil’ or ‘The Satan’ or ‘adikaios-incarnated’. The ‘spirit of this world’ who deceives humanity.
Imagine at the centre of the 2nd circle a ‘focus point’ which is Jesus as Messiah/Christ. The ‘ultimate’ dikaios-incarnated. The rightful ‘Lord’ of this world who restores humanity.
Now join a line between these two focal points and see ‘human activity/response’ as being in one of two directions, either ‘towards’ evil or ‘towards’ justice (as defined in Christ).
Those who find themselves aligned towards Christ, who are inclined to God’s Justice, are found to be within the ‘sphere’ of the ‘Judaioi’. i.e. they are the ‘dikaioi’.
Those who find themselves ‘against Christ’, who are aligned against ‘God’s Justice’ and towards chaos, evil and sin are found to be in the sphere of the ‘ethnoi’ or the ‘adikaioi’ (paganism as typically articulated within the OT narrative inc. Daniel).
But…
There is a point where the two circles intersect. The ‘valley of decision’(!). Consisting of the ‘ethnoi’ and the ‘judaioi’ (as traditionally, ethnically and culturally ‘conceived’).
For Paul, whether one is a ‘true’ pagan or a ‘true’ Jew depends NOT on ones ethnic, genetic or cultural origin but whether one is moving ‘towards’ the Christ and towards God’s Justice (and thus away from evil and wickedness).
If one (or a system) which identifies itself as ‘Jewish’ is actually ‘against Messiah’, then they are actually ‘pagan gentiles’!
Of course, for Paul (who is both a passionate ‘true’ and ‘ethnic’ Jew) there are many within the ‘ethnic-nation’ of Israel who have yet to decide whether to make this ‘ethnic’ identity real and to be united with Messiah by the Spirit (hence the use of pneumatikos/spiritual language when referring to ‘real Israel’). Because he himself demonstrates that such a ‘transition’ is more than possible he still contends for his ‘people according to the flesh’.
Yet, if they refuse the Messiah then they show that they are NOT part of ‘Israel’ and - in his eyes - no different from the hostile pagan nations. And the converse is true, if formerly ‘hostile pagan indivdiuals’ show themselves to accept Messiah, then he embraces them as the ‘true Israel of God’.
Now, much of Pauls language is fairly non-apocalyptic (although there is more than I’m sure we’re aware of), so this ‘Jew-as-now-pagan’ isn’t explicitly identied with Danielic ‘beasts’, but I see within Paul the ‘mindset’ that would allow the writer of Revelation to start to make this suggestion.
Clearly Paul didn’t ‘invent’ this reinterpretation of Israel, and from the good work that people like Andrew are doing it is easy to see that this ‘reinterpretation’ begins with Jesus. I see Paul as being someone who ‘grasped’ the depth of what this reinterpretation meant and who is ‘working it out’ on the wider Jewish/Gentile stage.
There is also a cracking paper presented by Dr. Wendy North (from Durham, see here) where she discusses the Johannine use of the word ‘Judaioi’ within the 4th gospel as it might be intended against the Jewish diaspora communities with which the primitive church struggled (see the life of Paul….!).
I think I am still convinced that - despite the greater power and evil of the Roman imperial system - the ‘primary’ opponent to the immediately post-pentecost church was the ethnic/cultural/political system of ‘Judaism’ out of which the kerygmatic church struggled to develop.
Perhaps we need to understand the late 1st century writers as ‘post-judaic’ in the same way that we understand the ‘emerging church’ as ‘post-modern’ i.e. as having an identity that part belongs in the former construct but which also struggles to overcome the ‘hinderances’ of the former construct by voicing a ‘polemic’ against it?
Richard
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
Andrew - sorry, I didn’t properly acknowledge your own interpretation of the lamb with two horns in Revelation 13:11. Don’t the horns identify the beast as vaguely (if not entirely) lamb-like? The appearance of the beast as lambish is reinforced by the usage of the word ‘arnion’ - the diminutive of ‘aren’ - ie ‘little lamb’. ‘Arnion’ is also the word used of Jesus elsewhere in Revelation. That there is some doubt over the actual identity of the beast fits John’s pupose - it seems to be a lamb, from its horns, but its voice is not that of a lamb.
Your various points are taken concerning the true worshippers in Jerusalem - though here we are into figurative language, and I simply interpret 11:1-2 as God’s protection of the church during Roman persecution - possibly with a sideways glance at AD 70 - but that isn’t suggested with any consistency. Historically, the two witnesses would not have been in Jerusalem in the AD 70 siege (as historically the church evacuated itself from Jerusalem). I’m not actually sure what your main points are, as I agree that while Jerusalem had acquired the spiritual epithet ‘Sodom and Egypt’, the escape of God’s people from its destruction doesn’t seem to be the primary focus (a ‘remnant’ give glory to God, having been ‘affrighted’, unlike the besieged inhabitants of Jerusalem in AD 70). I don’t really see that any of this alters an association of Jerusalem with the paganism, and the two passages you mention from Jeremiah seem to reinforce the association, in an OT context.
I also agree that Revelation would have had significance to the church in the 1st century - and I think it is possible to see it as John’s version of Mark 13/Matthew 24. It occurred to me while pondering this though, that the nature of apocalyptic is not so much to ‘explain’ (as in making everything clear), but in its cryptic style to heighten the drama, and bring encouragement and reassurance when the details seem to fit with the actual experiences which the church was going through. But many of the details don’t find an exact correspondence with historically realised events; Revelation 11 doesn’t completely fit with the destruction of the temple in AD 70; Revelation 18 doesn’t entirely describe any particular events associated with Rome’s protracted decline. So In that sense, it seems possible to me that the apocalyptist provides encouragement for believers at all times - especially those enduring persecution - with an application to the end of time as well. I’m not advocating a return to dispensational futurism - just noting the way in which the genre might be said to work - in its literary function.
Re: Somewhere-in-betweenism
Thanks Andrew - very helpful, and this also reminds me that the approach you are adopting spins out of Mark 13/Matthew 24, so far as it connects with Daniel 7.
Without wanting to get on the treadmill of interminable exchanges of messages again (which you very politely called a dance!), I think your summary is helping me to see where I get on and where I get off your eschatological omnibus.
The narrative in Daniel brings us, in 11:36, to Antiochus IV, who is also referred to in 7:8, 11. But a wider context is created through Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45 (the rock which destroyed the statue and became a mountain which filled the whole earth), and Daniel 7:13-14, and Daniel 9:24-27.
Mark 13 and Matthew 24 take some of the imagery from these particular parts of the Daniel narrative especially - and no doubt Jesus was speaking into a narrative concerning Israel’s history which would have been alive for her at the time he was speaking. They had no other narrative at that stage other than Daniel’s as it was understood in relation to Israel’s national destiny.
We also have the ‘coming’ of the Son of Man (erchomai) in Mark 13:26, and a ‘coming’ (parousia) in Matthew 24:3, a ‘coming of the Son of Man’ (parousia) in Matthew 24:27, 30, 39; and a delayed ‘coming’ (parousia) in Matthew 24:48 (the delayed return of the Master to the household). These motifs (‘coming’/parousia, Son of Man) connect us in part with the ‘coming’ (LXX?) of one ‘like a son of man’ in Daniel 7:13. In Daniel 7:13, as you say, the motif of the son of man is collective, but in Mark/Matthew, Jesus has identified himself as the Son of Man - combining, probably, the singular appellation of Ezekiel’s son of man with the role from Daniel identifying himself with Israel as a whole.
But here, Jesus gives the Daniel narrative an unexpected twist. The reappearance in Jesus’s Mark 13 narrative of ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ - Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14 / Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11 - would lead us to think that a victory over paganism for Israel, similar to that foreshadowed in Daniel, was about to occur. Instead, Jesus is also talking about a judgement on Israel, and the end of her temple system. The narrative is now in disarray. There is no vindication of historic Israel. The ‘parousia’ of the ‘son of man’ is not to be a triumphant vindication of ethnic Israel. ‘Parousia’, so far as it refers to Israel, is to be a ‘parousia’ of judgement.
Yet Daniel’s narrative remains, hovering over Jesus’s narrative. Did Jesus intend that there should be an abrupt dismissal of the tiumphant aspects of Daniel’s prophecy - that the vindication of the son of man and transfer of power and authority to the saints should not in the end occur? Of course not - and there are the other prophecies of Daniel concerning the mountain which became a kingdom that filled the whole earth, and all the other eschatological OT prophecies which echo this idea and imagery, telling us of a triumphant future to come.
Here, I think there is an imperfect match or overlay between Mark 13/Matthew 24 and the Daniel narrative, which reflects the changes Jesus was introducing into Israel’s understanding of her historical destiny: the discontinuity in the story. The Jesus narrative takes off in an unexpected direction. For instance, even allowing for apocalyptic hyperbole, the following does not seem to describe events as they turned out:
"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming (parousia) in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." - Mark 13:26-27/Matthew 24:30-31.
Was the Son of Man seen in great power and glory at the historic fall of Jerusalem and Rome? Debatable. Did the gathering of the elect as described take place at either of these events? More debatable still.
We also have to add to the narrative sketched out in Mark 13/Matthew 24 further aspects of the Jesus narrative which, at this point in Jesus’s story, have yet to occur - namely, his death, resurrection, ascension, outpoured Spirit. Bringing these into the frame, we now have some unexpected departures from the original narrative, and Israel’s entire way of understanding her destiny in history. Instead of a triumphant reception of the son of man as Israel into the presence of the Ancient of Days, which brought about national victory over her pagan adversaries, we have a Jesus, representing Israel in himself, received into the presence of God - Acts 2:33, and given all power and authority - Acts 2:33-36, which is now delegated to the saints to exercise on his behalf - Matthew 28:18.
The triumph over the fourth beast of Daniel 7 has now become a triumph over the power which the fourth beast wielded - the power of death. Jesus’s resurrection was much more than a vindication of a holy, righteous life - He was representative of Israel, and by proxy, the entire fallen humanity. His resurrection was a triumph over the very character of paganism, and Israel’s own failure, and indeed the power that held the entire world in its grip - death’s confederate: sin. The eschatological Spirit given at Pentecost was the executive authority of the kingdom, but it was also the essence of life itself, in which Jesus and the saints were now to reign - Romans 5:17, 21.
Jesus was vindicated by his resurrection - not in the destruction of the temple, or Jerusalem, or Rome. His ascension was simply a continuation of the resurrection, and was revealed to Peter and proclaimed with power at Pentecost - Acts 2:32-36. Jesus had now overcome Israel’s true enemies, and the summons was to all men everywhere to yield their lives to the victor, and receive the eschatological Spirit. The fourth beast was fatally undermined. Its power was now restricted. It could not control the power and authority which had now been given to the saints, because that power was not only given on earth, but extended beyond death itself. This, I take it, is the entire narrative of Revelation.
It’s true that we have to understand the narrative, as far as possible, as it was understood and being experienced at the time. But Jesus was also significantly changing and developing the narrative as it had been understood - taking it in entirely new directions. Even the disciples tended to understand things only in retrospect - eg Luke 24:32.
So I get off the eschatological omnibus at the point where judgement on Israel, and judgement on her pagan oppressors, are seen as the keys to apocalyptic history as told by Jesus. I get onto another omnibus which is the unexpectedly different narrative which is being told by Jesus in Mark 13, and also by his life. It is in the light of this narrative that I understand the Daniel narrative. But then I never was very good at public transport, and I have been known to get on the wrong bus entirely.