Does Matthew 27:52 fulfill Daniel 12:2?

[joel]

Richard,
The first use of the phrase, acharyith yowm (the last days, or latter days) appears in Genesis 49:1 where Jacob blesses his sons indicating that they, as separate tribes, will be part of the "last days".
The phrase, acharyith yowm, appears in the following OT books; Numbers 24:14, Deut. 4:30, and 31:20, Isaiah 2:2, Jerimiah 30:24, 48:47, and 49:39. Ezek. 38:8, and 38:16, Daniel 2:28, 10:14, Hosea 3:5, and Micah 4:1.
When you study these sections of scripture, you see that Israel is associated with each of them.
More imporatant, Israel's restoration, not their destruction, is the central topic.
When you move into the NT, the expression, last days (eschatos hermera) is used by Jesus in John 6, 11 and 12 (which all speak of the last day in the singular), in Acts 2:17, and by Paul (I Tim. 3:1), James (James 5:3), and Peter (II Pe 3:3).
The writer of Hebrews begins his presentation by stating that God spoke to the fathers through the prophets, but in these last days, He speaks to us through His Son. This single statement means that the last days extend throughout the time when Jesus speaks to us. Therefore, the last days began when He began to speak, and continue today as He still speaks to us.
The last days, when taking all of these uses into consideration, cannot be confined to the short span encompassing 70 AD.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
The first use of the phrase, acharyith yowm (the last days, or latter days) appears in Genesis 49:1 where Jacob blesses his sons indicating that they, as separate tribes, will be part of the "last days".
The phrase, acharyith yowm, appears in the following OT books; Numbers 24:14, Deut. 4:30, and 31:20, Isaiah 2:2, Jerimiah 30:24, 48:47, and 49:39. Ezek. 38:8, and 38:16, Daniel 2:28, 10:14, Hosea 3:5, and Micah 4:1.
When you study these sections of scripture, you see that Israel is associated with each of them.
More imporatant, Israel's restoration, not their destruction, is the central topic.
When you move into the NT, the expression, last days (eschatos hermera) is used by Jesus in John 6, 11 and 12 (which all speak of the last day in the singular), in Acts 2:17, and by Paul (I Tim. 3:1), James (James 5:3), and Peter (II Pe 3:3).
The writer of Hebrews begins his presentation by stating that God spoke to the fathers through the prophets, but in these last days, He speaks to us through His Son. This single statement means that the last days extend throughout the time when Jesus speaks to us. Therefore, the last days began when He began to speak, and continue today as He still speaks to us.
The last days, when taking all of these uses into consideration, cannot be confined to the short span encompassing 70 AD.

Joel

Hey there Joel,

Your interpretation of Hebrews 1:2 is faulty. That text does not say that the Son "speaks" but rather that he "spoke." This is how ALL of the twenty English translations listed on this site render that verse. Not one agrees with your assertion. Furthermore, exactly the same verb with the same mood and tense is used throughout the NT to imply a speaking in the past. Why didn't you notice this? Here are some examples:

Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Mark 6:50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.

Luke 24:6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

John 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

Acts 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

Can you find a single versed that supports your translation? I looked at dozens of occurrences and did not find a single example of the verb translated the way you suggest! Not one. Even Young's Literal Translation disagrees with you!

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days did speak [past tense] to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;

Why do you do this Joel? For all the years you and I have talked, you have presented false translations as the very foundation of your doctrines. I just don't get it. What motivates you to invent doctrines that are based on things the Bible does not actually state?

All the best,

Richard

[joel]

Jesus spoke.
And, His words are spirit and they are life.
He is still speaking to us in those words.

Jesus said that His words are going to be the basis of the judgment that will occur in the last day (singular).

47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The word that He spoke, speaks to us today, and will continue to speak.

The "last day" has not arrived.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus spoke.
And, His words are spirit and they are life.
He is still speaking to us in those words.

Jesus said that His words are going to be the basis of the judgment that will occur in the last day (singular).

47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The word that He spoke, speaks to us today, and will continue to speak.

The "last day" has not arrived.

Joel

That's all fine and good Joel. I never said that Jesus didn't speak, or that he is not speaking. I said that you had based your argument on a false translation, and my statement is true. Don't you care about that? Why did you ignore my response?

Now as for the "day of judgment" - I can see why you would think that implies a yet future event. That's certainly how the "plain text" reads. But that "plain sense" contradicts the "plain sense" of other passages, such as the Olivet Discourse, so every interpreter is faced with the dilemma of choosing which "plain sense" to accept and which "plain sense" to reject and reinterpret.

That's why it's so important to never change what the Bible actually states in an effort to force it to fit a preferred interpretation. The Bible is already messed up enough without adding to the confusion of asserting false translations and logical fallacies.

Now lets suppose your doctrine is true. How then does that fit with the Olivet Discourse? Christ began by predicting the destruction of the Temple, and he said it would happen during that generation, and history confirms his words are true. How do these facts fit with your interpretation?

All the best,

Richard

[Beck]

As far as I recall, Daniel 8 obviously refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, but most interpretors see Daniel 11 as something else. That part never made much sense to me and most conservative commentators say it is a very difficult passage to understand. Daniel seemed to track extremely well up to Antiochus and then goes off into lala land and doesn't make any sense. That's why most skeptical scholars think it was written around the time of Antiochus.

As for the figurative interpretation you suggest. There's actually a lot of support for that view - I mean, Ezekiel 37 and the "dry bones" is obviously not speaking of physical resurrection but rather a return to the land 9as stated explicitly in context). And it looks like the same imagery is used symbolically for Pentecost. But on the other hand, the physicality of Christ's resurrection certainly has given people reason to interpret the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 physcially.

So personally, I don't know. I'm surprised how much fits together, but I'm also convinced after many years of researching this stuff that the biblical teachings on eschatology are not logically coherent.

Richard,

As for the figurative speech and interpertation I would apply that same image to 1 Cor.15 as well as I mention here. In my opinion its reveals the mystery that Paul spoke of and how that correlates with how the gopsel is preached.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

As for the figurative speech and interpertation I would apply that same image to 1 Cor.15 as well as I mention here. In my opinion its reveals the mystery that Paul spoke of and how that correlates with how the gopsel is preached.

It is my opinion that there is no doubt that those words are used figuratively in many contexts. The post you which you linked makes that very clear. It may be true that those figurative meanings were intended in all the verses that are being interpreted as "literal." Indeed, the dominance of the Left Hemisphere in modern Western society has caused a general inability for many folks to understand figurative language as it was intended and used in the Bible, especially if the Bible were written from a Right dominant perspective (as are most religious texts).

[joel]

Now lets suppose your doctrine is true. How then does that fit with the Olivet Discourse? Christ began by predicting the destruction of the Temple, and he said it would happen during that generation, and history confirms his words are true. How do these facts fit with your interpretation?

The basis of my disagreement with your assertion that the "last days" have long ago passed, and that 70 AD is the "end" is that it simply isn't so......but, it my opinion, and you have your opinion.

Of course the destruction of the temple occurred just as Jesus said it would. And, that generation was carried away into captivity. I have not disputed that.....but......the other events would take place over an extended period of time....and could not have all occurred in that limited time.

Nations could not arise and oppose other nations, nor, kingdoms arise and oppose other kingdoms in one generation of time, in my opinion. Jesus said that those events were the beginning of the birth pangs, not the "end" of the age.

Jerusalem, according to Luke's version, must be trodden down by the Gentiles until the fullness occurs. It is still so today. So, that portion of what Jesus said has continued on which I see as Him still speaking to us by what we actually see happening.

Joel

[Tomret]

Hey RAM, did you miss this one? I'm interested in your opinion on this.

To me Da. 12:2 must refer to the resurrection at Christ's parousia, but it would seem "many" should be "all" instead. But, H7227 is rendered "multitude" 7 times in KJV (with H6083, "dust" in 2 Ch. 1:9), and is rendered such by:

(Young) Daniel 12:2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches--to abhorrence age-during.

Compare LXX. Note the translator brackets some phrases and numbers the order of reading to match modern syntax. What if the first 3 words in our syntax would read "And the many..." which could mean all that were in the dust at the time of the parousia. Since you're knowledgeable of Hebrew and Greek Richard, do you think that could be a possible rendering?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey RAM, did you miss this one? I'm interested in your opinion on this.

To me Da. 12:2 must refer to the resurrection at Christ's parousia, but it would seem "many" should be "all" instead. But, H7227 is rendered "multitude" 7 times in KJV (with H6083, "dust" in 2 Ch. 1:9), and is rendered such by:

(Young) Daniel 12:2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches--to abhorrence age-during.

Compare LXX. Note the translator brackets some phrases and numbers the order of reading to match modern syntax. What if the first 3 words in our syntax would read "And the many..." which could mean all that were in the dust at the time of the parousia. Since you're knowledgeable of Hebrew and Greek Richard, do you think that could be a possible rendering?

Yeah ... sorry I missed that. Young's Literal Translation supports your suggestion:

YLT Daniel 12:2 'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground [that's everyone!] do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during.

So it could work ...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The basis of my disagreement with your assertion that the "last days" have long ago passed, and that 70 AD is the "end" is that it simply isn't so......but, it my opinion, and you have your opinion.

Why do you write as if it were a mere difference of opinion? Don't you think there are sufficient facts in the Bible to establish which opinion is true and which is not?

Of course the destruction of the temple occurred just as Jesus said it would. And, that generation was carried away into captivity. I have not disputed that.....but......the other events would take place over an extended period of time....and could not have all occurred in that limited time.

Nations could not arise and oppose other nations, nor, kingdoms arise and oppose other kingdoms in one generation of time, in my opinion. Jesus said that those events were the beginning of the birth pangs, not the "end" of the age.

There were plenty of "nations rising against nations" and "kingdoms against kingdoms" in the first century world of Israel. There is no reason to think those words were not fulfilled.

We need to move beyond mere words subject to a variety of interpretations to the things that can be established and confirmed as fact. If we don't do that, then it's just one man's opinion versus every other man's opinion. What good is that? Is there no truth in the Bible? Is it all just a matter of private opinion? If not, how do we establish the truth?

Jerusalem, according to Luke's version, must be trodden down by the Gentiles until the fullness occurs. It is still so today. So, that portion of what Jesus said has continued on which I see as Him still speaking to us by what we actually see happening.

What did Luke mean by the "times of the Gentiles?" Is that phrase used anywhere else in the Bible? Nope. How then can we establish what it really means? Again, you are building your doctrines on things that are not known with any certainty, and rejecting the things that are confirmed by many witnesses. This is the sine qua non of all Futurist hermeneutics, in my humble opinion. Futurism has no foundation whatsoever in the Bible. It is all made up. People invent an imaginary magical stretchy 2000+ year gap and insert it between verses 26 and 27 of Daniel 9, and they insert that gap in the middle of verse 14 of Matthew 24! And then they deny that Jesus was talking about what Jesus was talking about (the destruction of the Temple) and they reject the plain meaning of hundreds of words like "this generation" and "it is the last hour" and "for the time is at hand" and all the hundreds of other mutually confirming verses. And they continue making up fantasies no matter how often they have been refuted, and they can never establish their doctrines on what the Bible actually states.

So if you would like to try to establish your futurist doctrines, I think that would be great. But we need to find the foundation in the Bible for your theories. I've shown you how its done a thousand times. Start with the final prophecy of OT concerning the coming of John the Baptist before Christ and the great and notable Day of the Lord. Christ said this was fulfilled in John the Baptist, who spoke to the Pharisees of the wrath to soon come. Both he and Jesus called them a "generation of vipers" and predicted the destruction that would come upon the first century generation. Paul said the same thing. And Revelation identifies Jerusalem as the Great City, Sodom, Egypt, Mystery Babylon in whom was found all the blood of the saints exactly as Jesus said in Matthew 23:34. And on and on it goes - there is nothing like this in the Futurist fantasies built upon the pure imagination of modern pop teachers like Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye. Preterism is Biblical, Futurism is not. It's as simple as that, or so it seems to me, and I've been chatting with folks about this for years on this forum and no one has come up with a good reason for me to think I've missed something.

Of course, now that I'm not a Christian and I no longer believe that the Bible is necessarily logically coherent, I don't need to try to make everything fit. I freely admit that some verses relating to the coming appear to exhibit a hope for a literal resurrection that I don't think happened in the first century. So Paul could have been wrong, or the resurrection spiritual (like he sometimes seems to say it would be). But I don't see any reason whatsoever to think that the Futurist paradigm has an ounce of validity, and no one as yet has presented any significant challenge to my conclusion as far as I know. Of course, I could be wrong, that I know, since I was wrong about Christianity for a goodly number of years. So maybe I'm wrong about this too. But if I am, I would think someone on this forum should be able to explain it to me. It's not like I'm stupid or something!