Peace is able to Destroy

“He will be a master of deception, defeating many by catching them off guard as they bask in false security. Without warning he will destroy them. So great will he fancy himself to be that he will even take on the Prince of Princes in battle; but in so doing he will seal his own doom, for he shall be broken by the hand of God, though no human means could overpower him.” (Daniel 8:25, the Living Bible)

“He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.” (Daniel 8:25, New International Version)

“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” (Daniel 8:25, King James Version)

So here are three versions of Daniel 8:25. The first is from the Living Bible (1971), which is a paraphrase of the American Standard Version (1901), which in turn is a revision of the King James Bible (1611).

The second is from the New International Version (1978), which is a translation of the earliest, most reliable Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts available.

The Third is from the King James Version, or King James Bible, a translation of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts by scholars in the time of King James 1 of England, ca. 1611.

This and surrounding verses prophesy about a mighty king who will arise and will through political skill and manipulation cause the land to prosper, thereby lulling the population into softness and unpreparedness after which his goal will become clear, namely to destroy the people to feed his greed. He will challenge God himself, but will be defeated.

For many, these stories are predictions of the nature of the apocalypse, the end time of everything. Depending on a variety of views of the apocalyptic sequence (post- or pre-millenial, for instance) Daniel’s portrayal of what’s been called the brief, destructive reign of the Antichrist will differ, of course. The folly of assigning roles in a current time to characters in Daniel has been demonstrated again and again by those who see prophecy primarily as prediction.

Nevertheless, the Daniel visions serve a purpose in Christian theology; if not, they wouldn’t have made the canon, I’m guessing. Indeed, rulers like Daniel’s Antichrist have come and gone repeatedly throughout history, have subjugated their people, promised them protection and finally, bilked them of everything that’s important. Daniel’s visions are warnings that apply in any era: complacency in times of apparent peace and prosperity plows the field for tyrants to sow their weeds.

Peace Shall Destroy Many, the novel by Rudy Wiebe, takes the principle in the passage surrounding and including Daniel 8:25 into a modern context. Although I’ve never heard him link the novel with Daniel’s vision, the implication that complacency—especially when manifested in the reliance on pious orthodoxy—can breed conditions for sin and, eventually, destruction seems clear. To me, it's logical: fat and happy people become lazy; laziness erodes vigilance; with no external danger against which to defend, we turn on each other. The rest is historically demonstrated, repeatedly.

And strange as this may seem, Daniel’s vision may serve to warn the Western church that it’s just had too much peace for its own good lately. It’s one thing to become ideological and doctrinaire about issues but—in the North America in which I’m living today—the strident pursuit of difference at the expense of common purpose pretty much characterizes the repeated and repeated news of animosity, back-biting and division. As surely as Daniel’s dream of disaster ferreting it’s way into the tranquility of a people rendered lax and torpid was once a strident, necessary warning, the signs around us today desperately cry out for a similar prophetic vision.

Or am I dreaming? Is the ability to achieve common purpose—even for a most critical calling—an impossibility, given human nature? It’s for becoming Christ-like in our daily walk that we were “reborn;” being right by proving others wrong on theological niceties is not a reaching toward the Kingdom, it’s a symptom of a modern-day reenactment of Daniel’s (and Wiebe’s?) vision of self-destruction. 

Isn't it?

Let’s concede, at the very least, that peace has the ability to destroy many.